U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

75–946 PDF 2002

S. HRG. 107–235

AFGHANISTAN’S HUMANITARIAN CRISIS:

IS ENOUGH AID REACHING AFGHANISTAN?

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NEAR EASTERN

AND SOUTH ASIAN AFFAIRS

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

OPERATIONS AND TERRORISM

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 10, 2001 AND NOVEMBER 15, 2001

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware, Chairman

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota

BARBARA BOXER, California

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

BILL NELSON, Florida

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming

EDWIN K. HALL, Staff Director

PATRICIA A. MCNERNEY, Republican Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NEAR EASTERN

AND SOUTH ASIAN AFFAIRS

PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota, Chairman

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

BARBARA BOXER, California

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

OPERATIONS AND TERRORISM

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

BILL NELSON, Florida

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., DELAWARE

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

(II)

CONTENTS

Page

AFGHANISTAN’S HUMANITARIAN CRISIS—OCTOBER 10, 2001

Bacon, Ken, president, Refugees International, Washington, D.C. ..................... 42

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43

De Torrente, Nicolas, executive director, Doctors Without Borders, New York,

New York .............................................................................................................. 35

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39

Kreczko, Alan, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees

and Migration, Department of State, Washington, D.C. .................................. 21

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22

Natsios, Andrew S., Administrator, United States Agency for International

Development (USAID) ......................................................................................... 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12

Responses to Additional Questions Submitted for the Record ..................... 15

Rocca, Christina, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, Department

of State, Washington, D.C. .................................................................................. 17

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19

Smeal, Eleanor, president, Feminist Majority, Arlington, Virginia .................... 46

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49

HUMANITARIAN CRISIS: IS ENOUGH AID REACHING

AFGHANISTAN?—NOVEMBER 15, 2001

Bartolini, Mark, vice president of Government Relations, International Rescue

Committee, Washington, DC ............................................................................... 85

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 87

Charny, Joel, vice president, Refugees International, Washington, DC ............. 80

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 82

Devendorf, George, director of Emergency Operations, Mercy Corps, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 77

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 78

Kreczko, Alan, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees,

and Migration, Department of State, Washington, DC .................................... 68

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69

McConnell, Bernd, Director of Central Asian Task Force, U.S. Agency for

International Development ................................................................................. 64

Natsios, Hon. Andrew S., Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development, prepared statement ............................................................................... 64

Oxfam International submission of 3 articles for the record:

‘‘Rebuilding Afghanistan: An Agenda for International Action’’ ................... 97

‘‘Food Has Now Run Out for Many Afghan People’’ ...................................... 99

‘‘Between A Rock and A Hard Place’’ .............................................................. 101

Rogers, Leonard, Acting Assistant Administrator for Humanitarian Response,

U.S. Agency for International Development ...................................................... 72

(III)

(1)

AFGHANISTAN’S HUMANITARIAN CRISIS

Wednesday, October 10, 2001

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NEAR EASTERN AND SOUTH ASIAN

AFFAIRS, AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

OPERATIONS AND TERRORISM,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittees met at 2:30 p.m., in room SD–419, the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Paul Wellstone (chairman of the

subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Wellstone, Biden, Dodd, Boxer, and Nelson.

Senator WELLSTONE [presiding]. This hearing, which will be a

joint Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee, Near Eastern and

South Asian, and International Operations Committees will come

to order.

Let me thank all for being here. We will have brief opening

statements, and then we will go to Mr. Natsios who is the administrator of the United States Agency for International Development,

and then Christina Rocca, who is Assistant Secretary of State for

South Asia, and then Alan Kreczko, Acting Assistant Secretary of

the Bureau of Population. We will go in that order by protocol.

The second panel will be Mr. Nicolas de Torrente, Executive Director of Doctors Without Borders; Ken Bacon, president of Refugees International, and also Ms. Eleanor Smeal, president of the

Feminist Majority.

Let me at the outset—and I think each of us will try to keep our

statements brief. I want to thank Senator Boxer for agreeing to cochair this hearing with me, and I want to thank all of the participants who have taken time away from pressing work to be here to

testify today.

The September 11 attacks in New York and Washington require

our country to respond assertively and effectively against international terrorism. As the administration takes military action inside Afghanistan, I believe we must also take urgent steps now to

address the humanitarian crisis there.

Even before the world focused on it as a sanctuary for Osama bin

Laden and other terrorists, Afghanistan was on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe, the site of the greatest crisis in hunger

and refugee displacement in the world. Now the worsening situation on the ground is almost unimaginable. After four years of relentless drought, the worst in three decades, and the total failure

of the Taliban government in administering the country, 4 million

people have abandoned their homes in search of food in Pakistan,

Iran, Tajikistan and elsewhere, while those left behind eat meals

2

of locusts and animal fodder; 7.5 million people inside the country

are threatened by famine or severe hunger as cold weather approaches, according to the United Nations.

As President Bush made clear, we are waging a campaign

against terrorists, not ordinary Afghans, who are some of the poorest and most beleaguered people on the planet and were our allies

during the Cold War, when it suited our interests. We abandoned

Afghanistan then—we can never afford to do so again. I have said

before that I believe any military action must be targeted against

those responsible for the terror attacks and those harboring them,

planned to minimize the danger to innocent civilians on the edge

of starvation, and prepared to address any humanitarian consequences immediately.

Osama bin Laden is not a native of Afghanistan, but of Saudi

Arabia. Most Afghans do not support bin Laden. Instead, ninety

percent of the Afghan people are subsistence farmers struggling

simply to grow enough food to stay alive. War widows, orphans,

and thousands of others in the cities are dependent upon international aid to survive.

Now, fearing the effects of the military attacks and forcible conscription by the Taliban, almost a million Afghan civilians are on

the move, fleeing the cities for their native villages or for the borders.

We all agree that there is a humanitarian disaster on the

ground. We all agree that we—the United States—cannot turn our

backs again on the people in Afghanistan as we did after the defeat

of the Soviet Union; and we also, I think, agree that the terrorists

are our enemy, not innocent civilians in Afghanistan.

Inside Afghanistan, the United Nations World Food Program aid,

much of it U.S.-donated wheat, was the sole source of food for millions. UNWFP announced yesterday that it was stopping all food

shipments to Afghanistan, citing the danger the fighting posed to

its truck convoys. Our first priority must be to enhance security for

these convoys to get food immediately to the maximum number of

people inside the country. Let me repeat that. Our first priority

must be to enhance security for these convoys to get food immediately to the maximum number of people inside the country.

To get needed aid in and slow the outflow of Afghan refugees

driven by lack of food at home, the United States must urge the

Pakistani government to immediately relax its border restrictions

enough to allow the flow of food and other humanitarian into Afghanistan, while maintaining border security.

There is no easy solution to this building crisis, and yet our Government must aggressively seek solutions to the critical needs of

Afghan civilians. As one of its most urgent tasks, the United States

must do its part to shore up relief operations and help to again get

aid flowing to the people inside Afghanistan now.

While food deliveries inside Afghanistan must be the priority, air

drops of food are not enough and will not necessarily reach those

in need. We also must prepare for an already critical situation to

worsen as Afghanistan heads into its notoriously harsh winter. We

must prepare now for huge numbers of refugees and humanitarian

problems in the aftermath of military strikes, prepositioning in the

region the people and resources that we need to deal with.

3

Particular concern must be paid to the special nutritional,

health, and shelter needs of women and children who will make up

the bulk of the refugees. The United States must do everything it

can now to alleviate the suffering of ordinary Afghan civilians.

While President Bush pledged $320 million, the need is immense.

The United Nations has said that $584 million will be needed to

protect and assist 7.5 million Afghans from now until the winter

snows melt. We have agreed to participate in U.N. efforts to raise

funds more quickly.

The United States and our allies must lead this effort, especially

now as we seek to build a coalition of moderate Arab and non-Arab

Muslims around the globe for our anti-terror efforts. If the humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan is attributed to our military operations, it could pull apart our international coalition to fight terrorism, radicalize more people who might be sympathetic to the

terrorist views, and may even make the American people more vulnerable in the end.

Finally, any successful operation against terrorism in Afghanistan requires that we help the Afghan people establish a legitimate

government there and to rebuild their country. I join my colleague

Senator Biden and appreciate his fine work in calling for a $1 billion long-term economic reconstruction program for the region.

Such a package must target the restoration of a woman’s right that

was destroyed by the Taliban by providing secular schools for girls,

including the creation of full-scale hospitals and clinics.

As we have seen in the case of the schools, the absence of basic

social services creates a vacuum to be filled by radical extremist

groups. Moreover, we must work to rebuild the shattered infrastructure by laying roads, drilling wells for clean drinking water,

and providing a range of developmental projects. We as a country

have a great challenge before us; and for our sake and for the sake

of the Afghans, we must match our words with strong, generous actions.

I thank again all of you for being panelists, all of you for being

here, and I now turn this over to Senator Boxer.

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. This is a

rare time when we do join hands in subcommittees, because there

is a lot of oftentimes duplication; and we so much wanted to work

together on this situation, this humanitarian crisis that is developing, so we teamed up today.

I want to thank Senator Biden, our chairman, for encouraging us

to do this; and I want to thank my colleague, Chris Dodd who in

1997 was really the first one to call attention to the horrors visited

upon the women of Afghanistan from the Taliban.

And my last thank you for the moment is to the Fund for a Feminist Majority who came to me in about 1998 and helped me get

through the Senate and sign into law a resolution which I co-authored with Senator Brownback, urging the Clinton administration

at that time not to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government of Afghanistan; and I was happy that we did that resolution

again, and the Bush administration and the Clinton administration

both followed through. I am just thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for

supporting us in this hearing.

4

The events of September 11 and this weekend’s military action

have focused the world’s attention on what was visited upon our

country and our people. The sheer terror of what happened is

seared into our brains, and it has also focused attention on the people of Afghanistan; and I think that this administration is doing

everything it can to get the message across that this military action is not aimed at the people. The people are our friends.

We want to help them. It is such an amazing thing to remember

the bombs dropping and the food dropping, but we are on a twotrack path here to defeat the Taliban who are harboring terrorists

and yet to feed the people and make the people whole once again.

The other thing the Fund for a Feminist Majority did is to come

to me way before any of this this year and say, we have got to do

more for the people there; we have the humanitarian crisis there.

And that was before, Mr. Chairman, before September 11, and we

were trying to wrap our arms around the size of the package, and

it was so big that it was unbelievable. I am so glad, Mr. Chairman,

that you stepped in. I think there is probably great agreement on

the driving forces behind this crisis.

First, the nearly continuous war that for more than 20 years has

decimated Afghanistan and killed an estimated 1.5 million people;

second, a devastating drought that has affected much of Afghanistan’s population, killing livestock, destroying crops, and creating

the worst famine in decades; third, the illegitimate Taliban regime

that forces its extreme interpretation of Islam on the people of Afghanistan.

Through its Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention

of Vice, the Taliban carries out punishment such as stonings, hangings, floggings, and amputation of limbs. They use food as a weapon. The Taliban is very harsh on women who may not go to work,

go to school, and must black out the windows of their homes. In

my office, I have a burqa that women must wear that was given

to me by my friends from California. I have it hanging there as a

reminder of what women go through. They are made invisible.

They are not human, and in many ways really don’t exist. That

burqa says it all. If you put that on, you can barely breathe.

It is an incredible situation. The women can’t go to work; they

can’t go to school; they can’t see a male doctor.

Since the schools are closed, who are they going to go to for their

health care? They die in tremendous numbers giving birth. The infant mortality rate is impossible to imagine.

The final cause is the fact that the United States turned its back

on Afghanistan following the Cold War.

Again, this is something I think everyone in both parties has

agreed on. It was a mistake we must now take action to correct.

It is also a reason why a strong U.S. humanitarian response is crucial to prove without a doubt what I said about the Bush administration’s dual track, that we are fighting terrorism, not the Afghan

people, and also certainly not Islam.

In closing, I want to tell you that in Time Magazine last spring—

and so that is before all of this—there was a story about an 8-yearold boy who died in a refugee camp.

5

Prior to the boy’s death, his father had waited in line in the

camp clinic from dawn to dusk with hundreds of others stricken

with tuberculosis, measles, bronchitis, and other diseases.

This child had pneumonia, and when the boy’s father finally

reached the front of the line, he received 12 aspirin. That is all,

and the child died.

We must do better. We can do better, and we will do better. I

am looking forward to our two panels. I am so happy that, Mr.

Chairman, you have joined us. It means a lot to both Paul and to

me. Thank you.

Senator WELLSTONE. Senator Boxer, we will try and go, if it is

okay with Senator Dodd and Senator Biden, we will each try to

keep under five minutes, because we have two panels. Senator

Dodd.

Senator DODD. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you for

doing this, along with Senator Boxer. It is very valuable. We have

wonderful witnesses to hear from. I appreciate Senator Boxer entering the 1997 resolution in February of that year, which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed, I think, unanimously.

The House didn’t act on that resolution. Not that the resolutions

are necessarily going to change things, but this is not a recent phenomenon. We identified, in the language I wrote then, not only the

human rights condition but also the harboring of terrorists and the

potential problems the Taliban posed.

It has been said over and over again here now by Senator

Wellstone and Senator Boxer, and it needs to be repeated, and that

is, of course, our quarrel, to put it mildly, is with the Taliban and

with the terrorist organizations they support, and not with the people of Afghanistan. It is vitally important that be repeated as often

as possible so that message may get through to the millions of people who are suffering.

The map here that you are going to have before you outlines

some of the drought areas, the worst drought in memory. Many

people say literally millions of people’s very lives are hanging in

the balance. It has been recommended by Senator Biden among

others to have a significant humanitarian commitment to the people of Afghanistan.

The pressures are huge. The ebola virus—or something like it— may have broken out in the camps in Pakistan. They are closing

down borders, creating even more pressures on this desperate population seeking to avoid the hostilities in their countries, seeking

some security, some sustenance in these camps. The pressures on

Pakistan as well as on the people operating these camps are going

to be tremendous. They already are.

So, while we are pressing the conflict against the Taliban and

the terrorist organizations, it is going to be critically important— the success of the military campaign, in my view, will bear directly

on our ability to succeed in humanitarian campaign, and if we wait

to complete one before starting the other, we will fail. This has got

to be as much an effort as the military campaign is, or we run the

risk of millions of people losing their lives, not because of what we

are doing, obviously, but because of what the Taliban is doing.

But you can fill the ranks of those who would become the foot

soldiers of these organizations if we don’t understand the dimenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:27 May 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 75946 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
6

sions of the human problem that exists, so I am grateful for the

hearing and look forward to hearing from the witnesses.

Senator WELLSTONE. We will first hear from Chairman Biden.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Biden, chairman of the full committee).

I just want to thank my colleagues for being willing to do this and

explain my absence. I am chairing the hearing on the new drug director, drug czar, downstairs in the Judiciary Committee, and both

Senators Wellstone and Boxer have done a great deal of work in

this area for a long time, and so it is not only appropriate. It is

a bit unusual for two subcommittees to hold a joint hearing, but

the two of them have been so deeply involved and concerned about

this area of the world, Afghanistan and particularly the Taliban

precisely, that it is appropriate that this be done.

Let me begin by saying that you are going to be preaching to the

choir here. I have had the chance to meet with the administration

extensively on this, and I must tell you, and I will say publicly, I

am extremely pleased by the way in which the Secretary of State

has led in this area, and I not only have not gotten resistance to

the proposal I have made.

Quite frankly, it was a little bit of unofficial collaboration that

went on here in terms of the proposal, so I don’t want anyone to

think I am making that speech on the floor and talking about an

immediate billion dollars and a long-term commitment is necessarily an abridgement with me. I don’t want to get anyone into

trouble, but there are a significant number of people in the administration in high positions who feel very strongly that this is not

only the short-term commitment but long-term commitment.

I had the opportunity, I would say to our co-chairs, yesterday to

spend a little over an hour with the President on this very subject.

I am absolutely convinced the President understands the need for

this to be a long haul, and I think this may be the first time in

the history of warfare where literally as we are dropping bombs,

we are dropping food, not follow-on, but as we are dropping bombs,

we are dropping food.

We are dropping 350,000 meals. There would be enough sustenance for an individual person for one day and 350,000 we have

also committed. I think it is too little, but I think it is great that

is has begun over $350 million toward what Kofi Annan has suggested is needed for the next six months of roughly $450 million.

Through the leadership of the administration, the rest of our

friends around the world have pledged the remainder of that

money up front.

I met today with Lord Robertson of NATO, and one of the issues

we talked about—and everyone understands this is the guy heading the NATO operation—the arrow is in the talon, and not the

peaceful side of this equation, and that the only discussion was

about what we do after we, quote, win. That is after the hostilities

cease, and so there is an overwhelming, I think, understanding on

the part of most of the members of Congress, I hope, and most of

the members of the administration, I know, for the need for this

to be a long-term operation, and it is not only when the last Russian troop crossed the Afghan border heading north.

Not only did they leave Afghanistan, but Afghanistan left the

consciousness of all but a few here in the United States Congress.

7

I was here, so—and I am not laying this on anyone else. I was

here. There was not nearly enough attention paid, but because of

my three colleagues here, including Senator Dodd, they tried to

keep a focus on it, and the truth of the matter is not enough of us

listened as well as we should have, and the world surely didn’t. We

kind of hoped this would go away.

So that I just want to say I know you are going to be preaching

to the choir a little bit. I know we are not going to use words like

‘‘nation-building,’’ because that scares the hell out of the Republicans, and you beat up the former President for years on it, and

you are about to do it, thank God. But what I want to make clear

here is we are talking about draining the swamp. That is a phrase

that has become almost a cliche these days, draining the swamp,

where these terrorists are able to breed, if you will. Well, once we

drain the swap, we had better plan something in that swamp.

There had better be something that is put in its place. It better

be something that fills the swamp, again what was the swamp.

And so, I think that the long-term solution includes such important items as secular education for both boys and girls in Afghanistan. It will serve two purposes. It will break the grip the radical

religious academies have on that part of the world, because of the

void that has been left. I mean, as you all know—and I know this,

again, is preaching to the choir—the administration witnesses

know half the reason why half these young men are in these academies, it is the only place their parents could put them, knowing

they would get three square meals a day and get clothed, and the

choice was an easy one for them to make.

But it has had a devastating impact upon the mentality and attitude of the region, and so I think that no wonder this is a nation

that is in ruins, when you keep half your population, the women

of a population, in such a subservient position, there is no possibility of you progressing. And so one of the things we can do is literally with the rest of the world see to their secular education.

We could be involved extensively in demining operations.

We can be involved in crop substitution for the narcotics, because

they are the world’s foremost producer of opium, and basic infrastructure projects like wells, water purification and hospitals, village hospitals, village clinics, et cetera, and this cost is going to be

very, very high. We should not kid each other. We are talking

about billions of dollars. we are not talking about $100 million or

200 or 500.

We are talking about $585 million just to keep people from dying

in these camps over this winter, so this is a gigantic cost, and my

plea to the administration and to my colleagues—and I don’t have

to plead to these three, because they are ahead of me on this—is

that the same fervor with which we put together this coalition to

take on this cancer that we were awakened to in a horrible manner

on one month ago today is the same coalition we have to keep together to see to it that we don’t allow the same swamp to fill up

again, coming out of our naked self-interest.

If anything is going to demonstrate to us that we cannot stand

alone, that we cannot unilaterally dictate the outcome of our future, it is what has happened in Afghanistan. What has happened

in Afghanistan, we are bearing the brunt of now, right now in

8

terms of us being under siege. And so just as the fight against terrorism is truly a fight for all nations, I think the fight against destitution and despair that breeds terrorism is the fight of all nations.

Again, thank you, both of you, for doing this, and thank the administration. I am going to tell you what I said—and I have said

this straight out—I kid with the Secretary. He says, For God’s

sake, don’t compliment me too much; it hurts my reputation. But

all kidding aside, I think the administration has stepped up to the

ball here in a way that I must tell you, I did not expect. And for

that I publicly apologize for not expecting it.

But you have stepped up to it. You have stepped up to it in a

way that I think has thus far been absolutely first rate, and I have

never once had a conversation at State—and I have had many, as

you know—I have never once had a conversation at State where

anybody ended the sentence by saying, And when we get Al-Qaeda,

we leave. Nobody is thinking that way now.

Although there are a number of people in the administration who

do think that way, who you have not—thus far have not been able

to convince, the President—your view has been the one the President seems to have embraced, and so as Jim Eastland once said to

me back in 1978 when I was running a tough reelection campaign,

I walked into the Senate dining room one afternoon as we were

about to adjourn sine die, and the old conservative chairman of the

Judiciary Committee on which I served looked at me. I must have

been flunking what I called the slope-of-the-shoulder test, and that

is, I was running, and I guess I was looking like this.

And when anybody says, How are you doing in your race, and

you go, Oh, I am doing great, you know you are losing. If you stand

up and say, I don’t know, okay, you know they are winning. I must

have been flunking that test. He called me over, and he said, Do

you need help in Delaware. I said, Mr. Chairman, I do need a lot

of help. He said, What would Jim Eastland do for you in Delaware.

I said, In some parts you would help me, Mr. Chairman, and in

some parts, you would hurt. And he took that cigar out of his

mouth and—This is an absolutely true story. You used to be able

to smoke in the dining room then. And he looked at me, and he

said, Well, Joe, I will come and campaign for you or ag’in’ you,

whichever will help the most. I want the administration to know,

I will say bad things about you and good things about you, whichever will help the most in you continuing this process.

Excuse me. I have just been corrected. Not 350,000; 35,000 meals

have been dropped so far, but that is just the very beginning. So

at any rate, I thank you for what you have been doing. Keep up

the work. You have got a lot more to do, and together we have got

to convince the American people that what the President says, he

means. This is not going to be done in a short time, and part of

this process is the very thing my colleagues are working.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Natsios, again, Administrator, United States Agency for

International Development.

9

STATEMENT OF MR. ANDREW S. NATSIOS, ADMINISTRATOR,

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. NATSIOS. Thank you, Senators. Thank you for inviting me

and my colleagues here for this extremely important and timely

hearing on the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. Afghanistan

truly is a country in crisis, a crisis that well predates the events

of September 11 by many years.

Three years of drought and 22 years of conflict and five years of

brutal Taliban misrule have brought untold suffering to millions of

people. The long drought has caused the near total failure of rainfed crops in 18 of the 29 provinces in the country. Only 10 or 12

percent of the country is now arable, and much of that land cannot

be used due to mines and fighting that has raged about the country

since the Soviet invasion in 1979.

Thirty percent of the Afghans’ irrigation infrastructure has been

damaged or fallen into disrepair, rendering about half of the irrigated land completely unusable. In 1979, Afghanistan was able to

feed itself. Last year, the food deficit was 1.8 million metric tons.

The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates the country will

only produce 10,000 of the 400,000 metric tons of seed that it will

need for this fall’s winter wheat crop, and next spring’s planting,

and we know the reason why.

Most of the seed has already been eaten by farmers who fear

that they may not survive until the next crop. That is the typical

famine coping mechanism. It is where people consume their feed if

they do not think they are going to survive to the next crop.

Approximately 12 million people, almost half of the nation’s inhabitants, have been affected by the drought.

Between the fighting and the drought, upwards of 3 million people have been driven from the country and are living as refugees.

Another million are internally displaced, and many thousands

more are unable to move due to sickness, injury, disability or hunger.

The WFP, the World Food Program, distributes on a wholesale

basis into the country, and then the NGOs distribute to people directly inside the country. Estimates are that food stocks in the

country are critically short, and they are aggressively seeking to

move food into the country.

As of this morning, I talked with Catherine Bertini, my good

friend who is the director, the executive director of the World Food

Program, and she told me that WFP had just sent convoys out from

four countries with 3,300 metric tons of food from Iran,

Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Pakistan into the country so the

food deliveries that were suspended on Saturday have resumed,

and Catherine and I agreed we needed to push those deliveries before the snows arrive in the high mountain areas of the Hindu

Kush, among the highest peaks in the world.

Many people don’t realize the terrain in central Afghanistan is

very similar to Tibet’s. There is a high plateau very similar to

those in Tibet, and the highest peak is 25,000 feet high. Mt. Everest is 29,000 feet. These are not small mountains; these are huge

mountain ranges, and there are millions of people who live in those

mountains.

10

Although WFP wasn’t able last week or as of Monday to hire

commercial truckers to take food in, its operations nevertheless

have proceeded as of this morning, as I just mentioned. The international community who I understand is here today has been able

to maintain the programs in many parts of the country. We met

with the major NGOs last night, the American NGOs that are

doing the retail food distributions, individuals, and a number of

them told me there has been no disruption to their operations at

all.

The conflict is really confined to certain areas of the country.

There are large parts of the area in which distributions have continued and aid programs have continued.

There are, however, 1.5 million Afghans who are seriously at risk

of starvation this winter, and there are another 5 to 7 million Afghans facing critical food shortages and are partially or fully dependent on outside assistance for their survival.

One of the first actions I took when I was confirmed administrator of USAID at the beginning of May this year was to order an

assessment conducted by the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance,

working with the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. They did an assessment with U.N. agencies

inside the country, and they came to the conclusion that Afghanistan was on the verge of widespread and precipitous famine.

Based on this and other information and with the support of Secretary Powell, I ordered the disaster assistance response team into

the region in June. It has been there ever since, and it has continued to work with NGOs. We have also increased by 100,000 tons

the food commitments. This was in early June. This was preceding,

well preceding September 11.

Our aid program in Afghanistan in the last fiscal year, again pre- ceding this event, the events in the United States, was $184 million, 300,000 tons of food. It was one of our largest humanitarian

relief operations. It was based purely on need, need of the Afghan

people because of the civil war and the drought.

There is a terrible need inside Afghanistan. I am not going to go

through the entire testimony I provided, but I want to focus on five

key strategies that we are pursuing to deal with this emergency.

The first and primary response is to reduce the death rates. That

is our first principle in all that we do. How can we drive the death

rates of this famine down?

The famine has not peaked. Famines move in chronological cycle,

and if you look at famines, you will see rising death rates. They

peak; then they begin to diminish, and they get down to a normal

level after a year or two. We have not yet peaked. In fact, we are

at the beginning of the rise in these death rates. In the assessment

that was done in May, we noticed in some villages six, sometimes

eight people were dying per 10,000 people each day.

In the OFDA doctrine and public health doctrine, usually in our

public health schools, if more than two people a day die per 10,000

people, it means there is a severe food emergency. In most of our

cities and towns in the United States, half a person dies—or a person dies every other day. If you took a town of 10,000 people, and

you did the statistics for a year, you would notice one death every

other day. So if you have two every day, you know that the rate

11

has gone up dramatically. If you have six to eight, you have a famine.

And, in fact, in some villages, those rates were—had reached

that level last spring, and if you add the numbers up, that means

30 percent of the village would be dead within a 365-day period.

So you can see how severe it was in certain areas. It had not

spread across the whole country. We were seeing it begin to appear, and that is the typical pattern in famines.

The second thing we are doing is to minimize population movements. People move for two reasons: one, for security, and they

cross international boundaries because of that, to refugee camps, to

displaced camps inside the country. But they also move because

they are hungry, and that is generally a post-famine indicator in

certain regions. People leave their village when they have absolutely no options left, when there is no food on the way. That is

when they start dying.

They have no other way of surviving.

We do not want population movements in a famine, simply because when people are acutely malnourished, they do not last, particularly when it gets cold. Complicating this dramatically is the

severe winter in much of Afghanistan. If this were a tropical climate, we would not have as high death rates this winter, but these

are arctic regions. In some of the regions of the Hindu Kush, the

snow is 20 to 30 feet deep and is completely inaccessible the entire

winter.

So we do not want population movements. Fifty percent of the

people will either die during the movements, or when they arrive

in the camp, they will be so debilitated they cannot be revived, so

we do not want population—to the extent that we can avoid them

by moving food into people’s villages, into their neighborhoods, the

famine reason for moving will be at least dealt with. If they are

moving for security reasons, that is another matter.

The third thing we are doing is something that is not commonly

known publicly, but we do this all the time in famines, and that

is to deal on the commercial side, not through the aid agencies, although the aid agencies help us do this, is we sell food in specific

markets to get the price down. A lot of Afghans survive on remittances. The Afghan diaspora of educated Afghans in the United

States is very large. They send remittances back to their relatives,

and extended families of 100, 150 people will survive on those remittances. We see this in famine after famine.

If food prices go up 30 to 50 percent, which they have since September 11 in many cities in Afghanistan, it means they can buy

half as much food for their extended families.

So what we want to do is get the food prices down to a stable,

normal level, and keep it there for the remainder of the famine. So

we will use what we call contra-famine market strategies to keep

food at a normal level.

The fourth strategy is to make sure food gets to where it is intended to go. We do not want it diverted. We do not want it manipulated, and there are some strategies, if you are interested, that I

can go over that we are assuming to do that.

Fifth, we are beginning most importantly what we call developmental relief, another term we don’t use publicly, but for many

12

years the NGOs—and I was with one for five years, and I was with

the first Bush administration where we did this very effectively.

We used relief resources to do development work in the middle of

civil wars and famines and emergencies.

And we do that, for example, through food-for-work projects.

In Somalia in 1991, we repaired almost the entire irrigation system of the lower Shebele Valley, using food-for-work in a famine

to keep people alive. It was also the same farmers who will get the

water from the irrigation systems that were being repaired. There

was a dramatic increase in food production as a result of this developmental relief intervention.

The NGOs we met with, and the U.N. agencies, have agreed that

the best strategy to pursue is to use the food-for-work incentive for

people who are able-bodied, to do food for work, to increase family

incomes, to increase the resources in the village so that we can

begin the reconstruction of the country now and not wait until the

end of the civil war is over or the end or the end of the military

campaign.

Senator WELLSTONE. Mr. Natsios, can I ask you to finish.

Mr. NATSIOS. Anyway, that is our strategy, and we are pursuing

that right now, and we will aggressively pursue it in the future.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrew S. Natsios follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANDREW S. NATSIOS

Madam Chairman, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, thank you for

inviting me here for this extremely important and timely hearing on the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan.

INTRODUCTION

Afghanistan today is a country in crisis, a crisis that predates the events of September 11 by many years. Three years of drought, 22 years of conflict, and five

years of brutal Taliban misrule, have brought untold suffering to millions of people.

The long drought has caused the near-total failure of rain-fed crops in 18 provinces. Only ten to twelve percent of the country is arable, and much of that land

cannot be used due to land mines and the fighting that has raged about the country

since the Soviet invasion of 1979. Thirty percent of Afghanistan’s irrigation infrastructure has been damaged or fallen into disrepair, rendering about a half of the

irrigated lands unusable.

In 1979, Afghanistan was able to feed itself. By last year, 2.3 million metric tons

(MT) of food had to be imported. The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) estimates that the country will only produce 10,000 of the 400,000 MT of seed that

it will need for next year’s planting. We know the reason: most of the seed has already been eaten by farmers who fear they may not survive until the next crop.

Approximately 12 million people, almost half of the country’s inhabitants, have

been affected by the drought. Between the fighting and the drought upwards of 3

million people have been driven from the country and are living as refugees. Another 700,000 are internally displaced. Many, many thousands more are unable to

move, due to illness, hunger, injury, or disability.

The World Food Program (WFP), which distributes most of the food within Afghanistan, estimates that food stocks in the country are critically short and they are

aggressively seeking to move food into the country. Although WFP was unable to

identify commercial truckers to take food in on Monday of this week, its operations

are otherwise proceeding as planned with deliveries yesterday and today going on

schedule. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the International Committee

of the Red Cross (ICRC) have been able to maintain their programs in many parts

of the country, especially those areas where there is no military activity, through

the efforts of thousands of dedicated local Afghan staff, many of whom have worked

for these organizations for decades.

13

Still, we believe that 1.5 million Afghans risk starvation by winter’s end and that

between five and seven million Afghans face critical food shortages and are partially

or fully dependent on outside assistance for survival.

ACTIONS PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 11

One of the first actions I took as the Administrator of USAID was to order an

assessment conducted by a team from our Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance,

working with the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration. Their conclusion was inescapable: Afghanistan was ‘‘on the verge of widespread

and precipitous famine.’’

Based on this and other information, and with the support of Secretary Powell,

I ordered a Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) to the region. They arrived

in June and have been operating in the region ever since. Since then, we have focused on Afghanistan’s humanitarian needs as never before. Through closer cooperation with the UN specialized agencies and the NGOs with whom we work, we have

been able to target our efforts more precisely toward those who need it most.

The United States, of course, has been monitoring and helping the people in Afghanistan for many years. In the fiscal year that just ended and in the few days

since, the U.S. Government donated $184 million in humanitarian assistance for the

Afghan people. This includes a variety of programs run by the Department of Agriculture, the Department of State and USAID.

Our country has long been the largest donor to the World Food Program’s Afghan

humanitarian assistance program. Approximately, 85 percent of the WFP food aid

in the pipeline now—45,000 MT stored in Pakistan and another 165,000 MT on the

way comes directly from the United States.

The President has now added another $320 million of new money to this humanitarian effort.

HUMANITARIAN SITUATION INSIDE AFGHANISTAN

According to our DART, the conditions in many areas of Afghanistan are well beyond the ‘‘Pre-famine’’ stage. As best we can judge, the situation will only get worse

with the coming winter.

While most people comprehend famine as a dramatic increase in death rates due

to starvation and hunger-related illnesses, there are a number of famine indicators

that relief experts look for when reliable information on death rates or malnutrition

levels is not readily available. These indicators include the following:

• Seed shortages due to increased cost of seed and/or consumption of seed stocks;

• Widespread sale of family assets, including land, homes, domesticated animals,

and family possessions, to raise money to buy food;

• Rising prices of f6od staples and hoarding of grain stocks by dealers;

• Consumption of wild foods, domesticated animals, and inedible materials;

• Increased rates of wasting due to malnutrition and other nutritional disorders;

• Declining birth rates;

• Mass migration in search of food and employment; and

• Increased deaths from starvation and related diseases.

In Afghanistan, NGOs, UN agencies, and the media are reporting evidence of

nearly every one of these indicators. The Afghan people are tough, seasoned by

many years of war and conflict. But many have exhausted their ability to cope.

Their resources are exhausted, their animals dead, sold or eaten. They enter this

crisis in an extraordinarily weakened state. Apart from the many sick, weak and

disabled, the most vulnerable population lives in remote regions, often at very high

altitude, cut off from most efforts to provide food or seed.

We are now seeing whole communities on the move, and many villages abandoned

altogether. Although precise statistics are hard to come by, many families have resorted to desperate measures, selling their draft animals, mixing their food with inedible substances, selling off their last possessions, or marrying off their daughters

to strangers at an abnormally young age.

While we have not been able to collect data on food prices fully, there are ample

signs that prices have risen rapidly in certain places, even as family income plummets. In major Afghan cities, food prices have increased between 30 and 50 percent

in the past month. Most alarmingly, there is evidence of abnormally high death

rates in some parts of the country.

14

HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE STRATEGY

President Bush’s strategy to deal with this vast and complicated humanitarian

crisis is designed to accomplish five critical objectives:

• reduce death rates;

• minimize population movements;

• lower and then stabilize food prices so that food in markets is more accessible;

• ensure that aid reaches those it is intended for; and

• begin developmental relief programs, in which we can move beyond emergency

relief, where possible, to begin long-overdue reconstruction projects.

REDUCE DEATH RATES

Our primary goal, of course, is to prevent as many people from dying as possible.

Winter is fast approaching, so time is clearly of the essence. We must get as much

food as possible into the country as soon as possible, particularly to the mountain

areas of the Hindu Kush. This means doubling the amount of tonnage going in, at

the very least, from approximately 25,000 MT per month to 50,000 MT. We are

opening all possible pipelines to move food, seed, and other emergency commodities

such as blankets and health kits into the country to increase the volume of aid.

Health care, nutritional surveillance, and water and sanitation programs are also

vital to the success of the aid effort.

MINIMIZE POPULATION MOVEMENTS

When people have sold all their assets for food. and have run out of options, many

leave their villages to find food or work. In other famines, we know that as many

as 50 percent will die along the way or in famine-induced refugee or internally displaced persons (IDP) camps. So we must do everything we can to encourage people

to stay in their villages by moving as much food as possible into the villages and

rural areas. The million or more refugees that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has predicted has not materialized thus far. One of our objectives is to see that

it never does.

LOWER AND STABILIZE FOOD PRICES

We also need to do what we can to drive down the cost of food, so that ordinary

Afghan citizens can buy what they and their families need. Many people die of hunger during famine not because of a shortage of food, but rather because of an inability to purchase food that is available due to skyrocketing prices. The best way to

counter this is to sell significant amounts of food to local merchants in order to

bring down prices and discourage hoarding. These merchants have their own means

of protecting their goods even in the midst of general insecurity, and the incentive

of profits to be made ensures that the food will reach the markets. Experience from

other famine situations has shown this to be a particularly effective strategy, especially in smaller markets where even limited amounts can have a significant effect

on prices.

ENSURE AID REACHES THE INTENDED BENEFICIARIES

It will be necessary to do our utmost to keep U.S. Government humanitarian assistance out of the hands of the Taliban or other armed groups. Part of our strategy

to do so is linked to our second goal, limiting population movements. By moving as

much food as possible to remote villages and towns, we can help discourage people

from concentrating in refugee and IDP camps, where the risk of manipulation by

the Taliban and their supporters is comparatively high.

All such camps should be managed, and all food distributed, by experienced expatriates; to permit Afghan refugees or IDPs to distribute supplies or manage the

camps, on the other hand, is to invite their manipulation by the Taliban or other

extremist networks such as al-Qaeda.

At the same time, we must be prepared to shut down any program if the Taliban

begins to loot or manipulate the aid. Where the security of the food is an issue in

refugee or IDP camps, we should avoid distributing dry rations. Wet feeding programs in which prepared food is distributed directly to beneficiaries, rather than

uncooked or dry rations, should be the norm wherever possible, even for adults, because cooked food spoils quickly, is heavier to move and harder to store, making it

more difficult to steal and more likely that the intended beneficiaries will receive

their rations.

15

By opening as many food pipelines into the country as possible, not only will we

be able to move more food quickly to where it is needed, we will also minimize the

distance any given aid convoy must travel to reach its destination, thereby reducing

the opportunity for diversion. We will also make it our policy that no more than

two weeks’ worth of food is warehoused in areas the Taliban controls so as not to

create attractive targets for looting.

Finally, we will also implement a humanitarian public information campaign so

the Afghan people know aid is on the way. This will have the dual effect of helping

to discourage further population movements, and will provide a check against diversion or manipulation of aid since people will know what they are supposed to receive

through this information effort.

DEVELOPMENTAL RELIEF

The constant conflict that has plagued Afghanistan has kept people from rebuilding their homes and villages, their farms, their markets and their businesses. We

intend to structure our relief programs so that they can begin this long-overdue

process of smallscale reconstruction at the community level where conditions will

allow. Our food-for-work programs, for example, will focus on practical sectors, such

as agriculture. Distribution of seed for the winter wheat crop or even small-scale

repairs of irrigation systems and wells can make a profound difference in the country’s recovery from this crisis. If enough crops can be planted and livestock rebuilt,

next year will not have to resemble this one.

COMMITMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTAN

The President and the Secretary have made very clear that the Afghan people are

not our enemies. The President said on October 4 when he announced his new $320

million initiative for the Afghan people: ‘‘We are a compassionate nation . . . We will

work with the U.N. agencies, such as the World Food Program, and work with private volunteer organizations to make sure this assistance gets to the people. We will

make sure that not only the folks in Afghanistan who need help get help, but we

will help those who have fled to neighboring countries to get help as well.’’

With the new funds the President has added, we can redouble our efforts to get

relief to those who need it most. Despite the events of September 11, and the fact

that we have no diplomatic relations with the Taliban, and despite their refusal to

hand over bin Laden and dismantle al-Qaeda, our humanitarian assistance policies

will not change. Food aid distribution will be based on need. The President has

made this very clear.

Accomplishing our humanitarian objectives under the current circumstances is a

huge task, but I am confident that, if we follow the President’s strategy, we can save

many, many lives and help Afghanistan begin to rebuild itself. Let me assure you

that we at the Agency for International Development are fully committed to doing

everything we can to work with you in Congress, the other Executive Branch agencies, and the international community to accomplish these objectives.

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY SENATOR

BIDEN TO USAID ADMINISTRATOR ANDREW NATSIOS

Question. How exactly is the $320 million dollars President Bush pledged going

to be spent? How much money is given to each agency, how is it spent and when

does the pledge of money turn into the reality of assistance for people on the

ground?

Answer. The $320 million is allocated as follows:

• $100 million in supplemental funding for Migration and Refugee Assistance

(MRA), to be managed by the State Department’s Bureau for Population, Refugees and Migration (PPM). These funds will be used to provide support for refugees from Afghanistan resident in neighboring countries such as Pakistan and

Iran, for their repatriation when the opportunity comes, and for support to the

International Committee for the Red Cross. They may also be used to support

coordination of United Nations operations through the UN’s Office of the Coordinator for Humanitarian Assistance.

• $25 million in already appropriated funds from the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance account for the same purposes as the MPA funding, to be

managed by State PPM.

16

• $95 million of supplemental funding for P.L. 480 food aid to procure U.S. agricultural commodities such as wheat, vegetable oil, pulses and corn-soy blend

and for transportation and distribution costs. These resources will be managed

by USAID’s Office of Food for Peace, working through the World Food Program

(WFP) and U.S. private voluntary organizations.

• $96 million of supplemental funding for the International Disaster Assistance

account. These funds will be managed by USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster

Assistance. They will be used to provide relief to the destitute victims of conflict

and drought inside Afghanistan, including the internally displaced. They will be

used to provide health, water and sanitation, blankets and children’s warm

clothes for winter, and necessary local food procurement. They will also support

the logistical capacity of organizations such as the World Food Program. Most

of the funds will be implemented by private voluntary organizations and the

United Nations.

• $3 million of supplemental funding for humanitarian demining, to be managed

by the State Department’s Bureau for Political and Military Affairs.

• $1 million of supplemental funding for USAID’s Operating Expenses.

Most of these funds will be managed through grants to implementing partners

such as private voluntary organizations and the United Nations. The resources have

been provided for humanitarian assistance through the winter. Much of it has already been obligated and is in the process of being expended.

Question. How much of our efforts should be aimed at increasing the supply of

food for purchase as opposed to helping increase the amount of food aid? Should we

task trucks and drivers with delivering food to markets for sale instead of channeling all available resources towards delivering the over 50,000 tons a month of

relief commodities the World Food Program projects it needs to feed people in Afghanistan that can’t purchase food?

Answer. According to the humanitarian community, food is available for purchase

in most urban markets. Prices are back to pre-September 11 levels, except in areas

of extreme insecurity where movement of market items has been disrupted (such

as Kandahar) . However, a lack of purchasing power in many areas means that

some segments of the population are unable to purchase the food on the markets,

even at ‘‘reasonable’’ prices. USAID is evaluating methods to increase the purchasing power of the poorest through micro-credit mechanisms and cash for work

activities. This will stimulate the demand for commercial market development.

Question. You pointed out in your testimony that the tonnage of food going into

Afghanistan should be doubled at the very least, and that all possible pipelines

must be opened wide. How can we help the international aid agencies deliver double

the amount of food that they are currently sending into Afghanistan?

Answer. From October 14 to November 14, the World Food Program moved 52,075

metric tons of food into Afghanistan, reaching the monthly goal of 52,000 MT. WFP

is using all open corridors into Afghanistan. Therefore, the humanitarian community is now getting the monthly amount needed into the country. Due to insecurity,

once the food is inside Afghanistan, it is not distributed to the beneficiaries as

quickly as needed despite heroic efforts. Some areas are currently inaccessible. As

the security situation stabilizes, we expect the internal distributions will meet the

requirements.

Question. What plans is the Agency for International Development making for

longer-term relief and development in the region?

Answer. USAID has developed an economic recovery plan in the context of a larger U.S. Government strategy for Afghanistan. The President has emphasized that

U.S. involvement in longer-term development in Afghanistan must be part of a larger multilateral effort.

The key elements focus on restoration of essential services at the community level

and reintegration of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the near

term, and on longer-term economic recovery. There will be a primary focus on

women. Other target groups will include returnees and demobilized combatants. The

primary sectors are:

• Livelihoods and Income Generation: community public works programs that

generate labor as well as put in place critical community infrastructure (schools,

potable water systems, health facilities, etc.); skills training; access to credit;

and micro-enterprise development programs.

17

• Basic Education: support for community-based basic education programs, with

specific attention to girls; and basic adult literacy programs.

• Food Security and Agriculture: distribution of seeds and tools; rehabilitation of

critical irrigation facilities and rural feeder roads; distribution of breeding

stocks of livestock; and re-establishment of local markets.

• Basic Health Needs: provision of immunizations and vitamin A; prevention and

treatment of diarrheal disease and acute respiratory infection; infant and young

child feeding; maternal health; and basic water and sanitation.

• Rule of Law, Democracy and Governance: assistance to local authorities in responding to the needs of citizens through service provision; encouraging the participation of women and minorities in government; training of female leaders in

civil society development; supporting the establishment of select national and

administrative procedures that promote accountability and participation; legal

training and the effective administration of justice; and the re-establishment of

Afghan-managed radio broadcasts and other means of information dissemination.

Question. Is there any effort underway to use Voice of America broadcasts to inform people about our airdrops of humanitarian daily rations?

Answer. USAID’s program through the Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) supports the development of relevant and timely information on humanitarian assistance for the Afghan population, particularly internally displaced persons (IDPs),

other vulnerable groups, and refugees. OTI is working with international and local

partners to produce and broadcast relevant information in local languages, disseminate radios, and explore alternative media. The objectives of the program are to:

• Create awareness of existing U.S. Government and international relief efforts

inside Afghanistan, including availability, location and rules of entitlement for

food aid, shelter and primary health care activities.

• Prevent migration of large populations inside Afghanistan to neighboring countries when humanitarian assistance programs are functioning within the country. • Increase access by vulnerable Afghan populations to relevant information via

radio and alternative media so that international relief efforts are transparent

and those involved in diversions are exposed.

OTI activities include:

• Afghanistan Emergency Information Project: An agreement with the International Organization of Migration (TOM) to prepare a regular humanitarian

information bulletin for radio dissemination, develop additional radio programming, and make small grants to local organizations to support information dissemination. Also, TOM will procure and distribute up to 30,000 radios to vulnerable Afghan populations, taking into account security considerations.

• Voice of America Enhanced Programming: An agreement with Voice of America

(VOA) to significantly increase its news and information-gathering capacity in

the Central Asia region to provide information to Afghans affected by the crisis.

VOA, which broadcasts in both Dan and Pashto, will increase the number of

reporters from two to ten. Support began in early November and will run for

ninety days, with the possibility of an extension as conditions permit.

Senator WELLSTONE. Thank you for your testimony. I only do

that, because we do want to have questions. We have a number of

different perspectives, and I also worry about those later on, and

so we want to make sure we keep the hearing going along. Thank

you so much.

Ms. Rocca.

STATEMENT OF MS. CHRISTINA ROCCA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SOUTH ASIA, DEPARTMENT OF

STATE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ms. ROCCA. Well, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the

subcommittee, I am honored to appear before you with Mr. Natsios

and Mr. Kreczko to discuss the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan.

Andrew and Alan will speak to you on the details of the above criVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:27 May 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 75946 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
18

sis. I will restrict my remarks to providing an overall political perspective. I will describe for you the context in which this crisis has

fomented and grown.

It is important to bear in mind that the humanitarian crisis in

the region did not begin on September 11. Its causes lie in the tragic history of Afghanistan over the last two decades. Twenty-two

years of conflict have steadily devastated the country, destroyed its

physical and political infrastructure, shattered its institutions, and

wrecked its socio-economic fabric.

The crisis has been exacerbated by severe and prolonged

drought, now in its fourth year. Average life expectancy in Afghanistan has been reduced to 46 years. According to the World Health

Organization, the infant mortality rate at birth is 152 per 1,000

births. The mortality rate for children under five is 257 out of

1,000.

The Taliban have done nothing to alleviate the suffering of the

Afghan people. Rather, they have done much to intensify the anguish of Afghans by pursuing policies that victimize their own people and that target women and girls and ethic minorities, as Senator Boxer pointed out. They have shown no desire to provide even

the most rudimentary health, education, or other social services expected of any government.

Instead, they have chosen to devote their resources to waging

war on the Afghan people and exporting instability to their neighbors. Instead, they have welcomed terrorists to provide them a safe

haven and allowed Afghanistan to become the hub of international

terrorism.

In contrast, the United States has been the largest provider of

humanitarian assistance to the Afghans. As the President has said,

our quarrel is not with the Afghan people; quite the opposite. President Bush announced last week a package of $320 million in humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan. This brings our food and

non-food assistance to about $680 million since 1999.

As the United States began military action this weekend against

terrorists and Taliban defenses in Afghanistan, the military airdropped tens of thousands of humanitarian assistance packages for

the Afghan victims of this crisis.

Mr. Chairman, the United States has played its role in helping

to ease the suffering of the Afghan people. Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, the U.N. predicted that the situation

would deteriorate even further.

We anticipate 5 to 7 million people will be at risk of famine, as

Mr. Natsios pointed out, and that there will be a large scale of displacement of Afghans. Once again, we need to be clear. The blame

for this lies squarely on the Taliban.

Their failure to comply with the international community’s demands to hand over Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, to close

down the terrorist training camps, and to release the foreign aid

workers has resulted in further suffering for the Afghan people.

They have continually obstructed the delivery of humanitarian assistance by the U.N. and other international agencies.

The Taliban and foreign terrorists they harbor bear responsibility for the political decay, economic devastation, and international isolation of what was once a proud, tolerant, and fiercely

19

independent land. Immediate humanitarian efforts have been directed at getting as much humanitarian assistance as possible into

Afghanistan before the onset of winter, as Andrew was just talking

about.

We are also preparing for the possible flow of refugees into

neighboring countries. Alan Kreczko will elaborate on the refugee

situation, but there are already 3 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran. The U.N. estimates there will be hundreds of thousands more as the result of the current tensions. Most of these refugees are expected to come to Pakistan. We also expect smaller

movements to Iran and other Central Asian countries bordering Afghanistan.

To minimize displacement of people, we will provide assistance

inside to the extent possible and for as long as possible. However,

we are also urging all neighboring countries to allow entry of fleeing refugees.

Let me note that Pakistan has been a generous country of first

asylum for millions of Afghans since 1979. we acknowledge that

they have borne a heavy social and economic cost for this generosity. It has legitimate political and security concerns as a result

of the large-scale refugee inflow. Yet Pakistan has given its unconditional cooperation to the international community in combating

terrorism. we will work with Pakistan and the U.N. agencies to

help them shoulder the economic and social costs of the current crisis.

We have already lifted many of the sanctions and are now assembling a package of economic assistance for Pakistan.

Iran, too, also has been a traditional host of Afghan refugees. We

will work through U.N. agencies and others to make sure that resources are available for Afghans in Iran as well.

President Bush has taken the lead in responding to the Afghan

humanitarian crisis, but other countries are also pledging to do

their share, and Alan will be able to provide more details on this.

Finally, let me refer to President Bush’s radio address this weekend. He raised the prospects of a future reconstruction and development package for Afghanistan. we are beginning the discussions

with other potential donors, international financial institutions,

and the U.N. to examine what the reconstruction needs will be for

a future Afghanistan. We hope the internal situation will stabilize

so that we can move forward on such a program.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Christina Rocca follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY CHRISTINA ROCCA

Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, it is my privilege to

appear before you with Mr. Natsios and Mr. Kreczko to discuss the humanitarian

crisis in Afghanistan. Andrew and Alan will speak to you on the details of the evolving crisis and the U.S. response. I will be brief, and restrict my remarks to providing an overall political perspective. I will describe for you the context in which

this crisis has fermented and grown.

It is important to bear in mind that the humanitarian crisis in the region did not

begin on September 11. Its causes lie in the tragic history of Afghanistan over the

last two decades. Twenty-two years of conflict have steadily devastated the country,

destroyed its physical and political infrastructure, shattered its institutions, and

wrecked its socio-economic fabric. The crisis has been exacerbated by a severe and

prolonged drought, now in its fourth year. Average life expectancy in Afghanistan

20

has been reduced to 46 years; according to the World Health Organization, the infant mortality rate at birth is 152 per 1,000 births; the mortality rate for children

under 5 is 257 per 1,000.

The Taliban have done nothing to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people.

Rather, they have done much to intensify the anguish,of Afghans by pursuing policies that victimize their own people, and that target women and girls and ethnic

minorities. The Taliban have shown no desire to provide even the most rudimentary

health, education, and other social services expected of any government. Instead,

they have chosen to devote their resources to waging war on the Afghan people, and

exporting instability to their neighbors. Instead, they have welcomed terrorists, provided them with safe haven and allowed Afghanistan to become the hub of international terrorism.

In contrast, the United States has been the largest provider of humanitarian assistance to Afghans. As the President has said, our quarrel is not with the Afghan

people. Quite the opposite. President Bush announced last week a package of $320

million in humanitarian assistance for Afghans. This brings our food and non-food

assistance to about $680 million since 1999. As the United States began military

action this weekend against terrorist and Taliban defense sites in Afghanistan, the

military air dropped tens of thousand of humanitarian assistance packages for the

Afghan victims of this humanitarian crisis. Mr. Chairman, the United States has

played its role in helping ease the suffering of the Afghan people.

Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, the U.N. predicted that the situation will deteriorate even further. The U.N. anticipates 5–7 million people will be

at risk of famine, and that there will be further large scale displacements of Afghans. Once again, we need to be clear. The blame for this lies squarely on the

Taliban. Their failure to comply with the international community’s demands—to

hand over Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, to close down the terrorist training

camps, and to release the foreign aid workers—has resulted in further suffering for

the Afghan people. They have continually obstructed the delivery of humanitarian

assistance by U.N. and other international agencies. The Taliban and the foreign

terrorists they harbor bear responsibility for the political decay, economic devastation, and international isolation of what was once a proud, tolerant, and fiercely

independent land.

Immediate U.S. humanitarian efforts have been directed at getting as much humanitarian assistance as possible into Afghanistan before the onset of winter. AID

Director Natsios will elaborate on our efforts and those of the World Food Program

to feed the Afghan people. We are also preparing for the possible flow of refugees

into neighboring countries. Acting Assistant Secretary Kreczko will elaborate on the

refugee situation. There are already over 3 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan and

Iran. The U.N. estimates there will be hundreds of thousands more as a result of

the current tensions. Most of these refugees are expected to come to Pakistan. We

also expect smaller movement to Iran and other Central Asian countries bordering

Afghanistan. To minimize displacement of people we will provide assistance inside

Afghanistan to the extent possible. However, we are also urging all neighboring

countries to allow entry to fleeing refugees.

Let me note that Pakistan has been a generous country of first asylum for millions of Afghans since 1979. We acknowledge that Pakistan has borne a heavy social

and economic cost for its generosity. It has legitimate political and security concerns

as a result of large scale refugee inflows. Yet, Pakistan has given its unconditional.

cooperation to the international community in combating terrorism. We will work

with Pakistan and U.N. agencies to help Pakistan shoulder the economic and social

costs of the current crisis. We have already lifted many of the sanctions, and are

now assembling a package of economic assistance for Pakistan. Iran, too, has also

been traditional host to many Afghan refugees. We will work through UN agencies

and others to make sure that resources are available for Afghans in Iran.

President Bush has taken the lead in responding to the Afghan humanitarian crisis, but other countries are also pledging to do their share. The UN has estimated

that $584 million will be required to meet humanitarian needs over the next six

months. This past weekend in Geneva, the United States and major donor countries

pledged more than $600 million in response to the humanitarian crises.

Finally, let me refer to President Bush’s radio address this weekend. He raised

the prospects of a future reconstruction and development package for Afghanistan.

We are beginning discussions with other potential donors, international financial institutions, and the U.N. to examine what the reconstruction needs will be for a future Afghanistan. We hope the internal situation in Afghanistan will stabilize so we

can move forward on such a program.

Thank you.

21

Senator WELLSTONE. Thank you very much, Ms. Rocca, and also

Chairman Biden mentioned our appreciation for the ways in which

Secretary of State Powell has focused on this question, including

the whole issue of food relief for people and the humanitarian crisis. Please do convey our thanks to the Secretary for his fine leadership.

Mr. Kreczko.

STATEMENT OF MR. ALAN KRECZKO, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF POPULATION, REFUGEES AND MIGRATION, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. KRECZKO. Thank you, Senator. I will just say a few words

on the refugee front. When the President announced his $320 million humanitarian

initiative, he stressed that it would be available to meet the needs

of Afghans inside Afghanistan and also for those who have to flee

to neighboring countries. As Mr. Natsios explained, our most immediate current humanitarian priority is trying to provide assistance

inside Afghanistan, but we are also, as a second priority, trying to

prepare for potential refugee flows to neighboring countries, and in

doing that, we have to take into account the context and acknowledge that Pakistan and Iran have been very generous hosts to millions of Afghan refugees for years.

There are some 3 million Afghan refugees in neighboring countries with Pakistan hosting 2 million and Iran a million and a half.

As Christina noted, the U.N. high commissioner for refugees has

estimated that there could be an additional 1.5 million Afghans

seeking to enter neighboring countries in the current crisis. Their

estimate is that roughly 1 million of those could seek to go to Pakistan, 400,000 to Iran, and 50,000 each to Tajikistan and

Turkmenistan.

I need to stress that these are planning figures. At this time, the

actual flow of refugees is quite small. UNHCR estimates that between 20,000 and 30,000 refugees have entered Pakistan in the

past several weeks, and there have not been any significant new

movements to Iran or the other bordering countries. Future flows

will be affected by a number of factors, including whether the

Taliban continues to limit the ability of people to leave Afghanistan, how bordering states view arriving refugees, how much relief

we can get in to Afghanistan, and the course of how the military

activity unfolds.

As an official matter, all of Afghanistan’s neighbors have closed

their borders to refugee flows. However, as a practical matter, both

Iran and Pakistan are working with UNHCR to plan for refugee

flows, including through the prepositioning of supplies and the

identification and preparation of camp sites. Particularly given the

large number of refugees that these countries already host, the

international community needs to be in a position to assure Iran

and Pakistan that it will absorb the economic costs if there are additional refugee flows. President Bush’s $320 million initiative puts

us in a strong position to do so.

And I want to just say a word with respect to Senator Biden’s

stressing the fact that we need an international humanitarian response that mirrors the military response.

22

This past weekend, the U.N. convened in Geneva a meeting of

donors, as well as Iran and Pakistan, to discuss the Afghan humanitarian situation. The meeting strongly endorsed the view that

we should do everything possible to get assistance into Afghanistan

and also endorsed contingency planning for refugee flows.

Senator Biden noted that the U.N. has commented that $580

million will be needed to address refugee and humanitarian needs

over the winter. Overall, the U.N. announced today that they have

pledges of $730 million of humanitarian assistance with over 25

countries responding, so I think the international humanitarian response has been strong, and hopefully we will have the resources

needed to address the humanitarian situation.

Thank you, Senator.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alan Kreczko follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY ALAN KRECZKO

President Bush has provided firm leadership in the international campaign to

eradicate terrorism worldwide. A key part of his efforts is directed at both the immediate and the longer-term problems plaguing the people of Afghanistan, and on

this front, too, the United States is providing leadership.

Compassion is an integral component of the President’s foreign policy, and it motivates America, even in these trying times, to lead the international humanitarian

relief effort for those most vulnerable. As the President has asserted, ‘‘We have no

compassion for terrorists, or for any state that sponsors them. But we do have great

compassion for the millions around the world who are victims of hate and oppression including those in Afghanistan. We are friends of the Afghan people. We have

an opportunity to make sure the world is a better place for generations to come.’’

The President announced last week a $320 million initiative to provide additional

humanitarian assistance for Afghans—for both those inside Afghanistan and for

those who flee to neighboring countries. The United States has consistently been the

largest donor to international humanitarian efforts. With vital help from a number

of countries around the world, our goal is to alleviate the suffering that Afghans

have endured for more than two decades, as a result of war, severe drought, and

the brutal, repressive rule of the Taliban regime.

The United States believes that all of Afghanistan’s neighbors should be prepared

to accept new Afghan refugees as needed, and that the international community

must be prepared to shoulder the economic costs incurred by the flight of desperate

Afghan people.

Some 3 million Afghan refugees already reside in neighboring countries. The bulk

of those are in Pakistan and Iran; about 2 million in Pakistan and some 1.5 million

in Iran. As with its contributions to relief efforts overall, the United States has consistently been the largest donor to support those refugees. At the same time, it is

important to acknowledge the remarkable generosity of the neighboring countries in

providing relief and refuge to so many Afghans for nearly two decades.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has estimated that as many as 1.5 million additional Afghans could seek to enter neighboring countries as a result of the

current situation. It estimates that, of these, roughly 1 million Afghans could seek

to enter Pakistan; 400,000, Iran; 50,000, Tajikistan, and 50,000, Turkmenistan. I

need to stress that these are planning figures. At this time, the actual flow of new

refugees is relatively small. UNHCR estimates that 20–30,000 refugees have entered Pakistan in the past two weeks, and has not reported any new refugee movements into Iran. Future flows will be affected by a number of factors, including

whether the Taliban continues to limit the ability of people to leave Afghanistan,

how bordering states view arriving refugees, how much relief can be delivered into

and distributed within Afghanistan, and, of course, how the military activity

unfolds—not just against the terrorist networks but between the Northern Alliance

forces and the Taliban.

As an official matter, all of Afghanistan’s neighbors have closed their borders to

refugee flows. However, both Pakistan and Iran are working with UNHCR to plan

for refugee flows, including through the prepositioning of supplies, and campsite

identification and preparation. Particularly given the large numbers of refugees they

already host, the international community needs to assure Pakistan and Iran, and

23

other neighboring countries, that the international community will help shoulder

the economic costs incurred in providing assistance and protection.

This past weekend, the UN convened in Geneva a meeting of major donors, as

well as Iran and Pakistan, to discuss the Afghan humanitarian situation. Attendees

of this meeting expressed high praise to President Bush for his humanitarian initiative. The meeting strongly endorsed the view that we should make maximum efforts

to provide assistance inside Afghanistan, so that people are not forced to leave in

search of assistance. The meeting also endorsed contingency planning for refugee

flows, and provided assurances to Pakistan and Iran of burden sharing to care for

all new arrivals from Afghanistan. Overall, the donors pledged $608 million of humanitarian response, of which President Bush’s announcement of $320 million represents over half.

The unambiguous message of the meeting was support for the Afghan people.

That certainly represents the attitude and endeavors of the United States as well.

We are not at war with the innocent people of Afghanistan, and we are doing all

we can to ameliorate the conditions under which they have long been suffering. Our

campaign against international terrorism is multi-faceted, comprising political, military, economic, and humanitarian aspects. The President’s announcement last

Thursday and our continuing efforts to assist the Afghan people demonstrate that

our words are true harbingers of our actions.

Senator WELLSTONE. Thank you so much. I think if it is okay

with my colleagues, we will each go five, and then we will do follow-up questions if we need to.

Let me ask you, first of all, Mr. Natsios, to go to Senator

Biden’s—he wanted to correct himself. He had initially talked

about 350,000 daily drops, and then he said actually that it would

be 37,000 to 39,000 now. With these figures, each HDR could be

two meals if the people want to divide it up, but even—but there

are two questions I want to ask you.

There are many who are saying that few of the HDRs actually

reach their targets, number one, and even if every packet reached

its target, this would serve less than 1 percent of the Afghans who

are now at risk of starvation. And I wonder—I suppose what we

would say is, this is just but a start. And I wonder if you could respond to this.

Mr. NATSIOS. Sure. This, by the way—I brought it with me, just

because people are wondering what it looks like.

This is a humanitarian ration. There have been some media reports that the U.S. military is dropping soldiers’ rations, military.

We are not doing that. This was designed in mid-1990s, specifically

for internally displaced people, refugees and people who are hungry, for diets that are appropriate for people in the developing

world.

It does not have the level of fat content we have in a military

ration. I used to have to eat them as a soldier. I can tell you, these

are actually better than the military rations, but that is a matter

of opinion. I had to taste these in the mid-’90s when they were developing them.

These are dropped in large packages. The packages break apart,

and then these sort of—they are called flutters, because they flutter to the ground, and they say on them that they are a gift of the

American people. There is also a picture on them, because a lot of

people don’t read any language, let alone their own. It has a picture of a person eating, so they can see that this is something to

eat.

In terms of the actual drops, it is about 35,000 to 36,000 of these

are dropped a day, and we are up to about 111,000 as of today, as

of a couple of hours ago. I checked what the number was this afterVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:27 May 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 75946 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
24

noon, and that will increase as the days move on. We use two

standards in helping the military target where they would be

dropped, and AID helped them do that, based on our data from the

ground.

One is since in a month the snows will begin in the Hindu Kush,

that we wanted to send these packages to areas that were inaccessible by ground, either in remote areas or in the Hindu Kush, so

inaccessibility by ground transport is the first condition, and the

second condition is extreme nutritional distress.

You noticed this map. By the way, you may note that you have

this chart and that chart, and they are different. That is from May;

that is the drought in May. This is the drought as of today. You

can see things have deteriorated substantially since May of this

year, but you can tell from this map, in the dark green areas,

where the areas of the most severe nutritional distress, because the

drought was most severe. Most Afghans are, in fact, farmers or

herders, and so that is how we target this.

This is a very small portion. It is one—when it is finished—and

I am not going to tell you when it is going to finish, because that

compromises what we are doing or specifically where it is happening. The air drops are one-half percent to a percent of what we

require totally for the whole country. The great bulk of food in any

famine is always delivered on the ground, in this case by trucks

mostly. In some areas of the mountains, we will deliver it by donkey.

Senator WELLSTONE. Sir, your point is that this is just but a

small part.

Mr. NATSIOS. It is a small point.

Senator WELLSTONE. Let me ask you one other quick thing about

the air drop. There has been—I want this to be kind of a rigorous

hearing, so I put questions to you that are from a critical perspective. There has been, as you know, some criticism that actually the

air drop, the military’s air drops, are potentially harmful. There

are NGOs—the NGOs that have been working on the ground in Afghanistan for decades have argued, some have, that combining the

military and the humanitarian agendas basically endanger their

independent and impartial work on the ground. And I wonder how

you respond to this criticism. I have heard this; I have seen some

of it expressed. I wanted to get your reaction.

Mr. NATSIOS. Well, the first thing I would say is that while our

main purpose in any humanitarian relief operation under any circumstances is to save people’s lives, the fact of the matter is all

food that we distribute in a famine in a highly complex political

and military situation has political statements that are made by it.

When you feed people in a conflict like this, you are making a

statement that the Afghan people are not our enemies.

Now, that is not the primary purpose of it, but it is the reason—

you know, it is the secondary message that is being sent. I don’t

think that is bad. I think it is good. we don’t want the great bulk

of Afghans to be involved in this conflict. We want it to be directed

to the people who are responsible. The Afghan people never elected

the Taliban.

25

Sixty percent of the Afghan people belong to tribes that regard

the Taliban as an occupation force, 60 percent of the population of

the country.

The State Department did a poll this summer among the Pushtu

population, which is the ethnic base of the Taliban.

Seventy-five percent of the Pushtu people do not want Taliban

running even any of the country, so they have a very small base

of support in the country, and we want to send a message that that

is fine.

Senator WELLSTONE. You don’t think—I will come back to the

food later, but you don’t—I mean, I always put a lot of emphasis

on what NGOs tell me. I have always had such admiration for their

work. You don’t think this is endangering their own independence?

Mr. NATSIOS. No. Number one, we are not distributing these

through NGOs. They are through military air drops. It is not a normal ration that is distributed, so it is a very different kind of ration

that is being distributed. I have to say I don’t see any downside in

any way to—we are not asking the NGOs to compromise their neutrality at all.

Senator WELLSTONE. Thank you.

Senator Boxer.

Senator BOXER. Thank you. I just want you to know that I believe it is very important that the people know that food is coming

from us and from our allies in this fight against terrorism, because

I think that is essential. And as my friend Ellie Smeal taught me

and will teach us all later, the life of a lot of the Afghan people

is that they bury their radios and televisions, because they are

really not allowed to pick up anything, and a lot of them may not

know anything except what the Taliban are telling them, so the

fact that they can see this is from us, I think, is important.

But Senator Wellstone certainly has pointed something out. This

is a very complicated situation here, and what I want to ask anyone who is competent to answer it: From what I know about the

area, how do you make sure that this food, whether it is on the

ground or coming from the air, is going to the right people? Are the

Taliban in the refugee camps?

Is there any control over that, or are they getting the food drops?

And I read somewhere they were, and they were burning it. I don’t

know if that is accurate or inaccurate.

What is it like for a family here? You say you don’t want them

to move, but if I was a mom over there and I knew that winter was

coming and there was just a day’s food dropping and maybe I could

get it and maybe the Taliban would beat me to it, I think I would

get out of the freezing places, and then go to the border. And then

how do you deal with the fact that there are some skirmishes going

on on the Pakistani border, either with the Taliban themselves, or

with Taliban sympathizers?

I am just trying to picture in my mind: Where do these people

go? Where do they go to get this food for their family, to be left

in peace? If you had the chance to answer that question for someone who is looking for an answer, what would it be?

Mr. NATSIOS. The first is that people leave for a complex set of

reasons, and when you have a civil war and a famine at the same

time, it is difficult. Some people leave for both security reasons and

26

for nutritional reasons, because they leave out of coping mechanisms. The reason people die in famines is that food prices go up

dramatically, and their coping capacities collapse. They have no assets left to sell; they have no animals left to sell or to eat. They

don’t have remittances for whatever reason. They are in a remote

area; their crops have failed.

Senator BOXER. Okay. So let’s say that all happens.

Mr. NATSIOS. Right.

Senator BOXER. Where would you advise them to go?

Mr. NATSIOS. Well, we are trying to get people to stay, because

the options are not very good if they move. The reality is that the

neighboring— Senator BOXER. That is an interesting thing that you just said,

but it is, I think, an honest answer.

Mr. NATSIOS [continuing]. Yes. The reality is that we have had

experience for two decades in famines. If people move, their incidence, their risk of dying dramatically increases. Alex de Walt

wrote a book called, Famines that Kill. It is about the Sudanese

famine in 1985. And what he found is that one of the major reasons

people were dying was not because of hunger, but because they

were severely malnourished, and when they got to the camps, they

are displaced. And they are so close together, the sanitary conditions are so bad, they were dying from disease.

In fact, most people actually never starve to death. They die of

communicable disease before they actually starve to death, because

their bodies, their immune systems have been weakened from the

hunger. So we don’t want them to leave for health reasons, nutritional reasons, and survival reasons.

Senator BOXER. That is really an important point. Is there truth

to what Senator Dodd said? I had read it also, about ebola.

Mr. NATSIOS. It is not called ebola, but it is similar.

It causes severe internal bleeding, and there appears to be an

outbreak in one of the areas. Although we are investigating that

now, it is not on a massive scale, but there are some right along

the Pakistani border, I think, in the northern area.

Senator BOXER. Would you keep our subcommittees informed on

that front?

Mr. NATSIOS. We certainly will. Let me answer the question,

Senator, that you asked, though, about targeting.

How do we know where the food goes? It is not just that the

World Food Program does a large-scale logistics. They move the

food in large tonnages inside the country. There is now 50,000 tons

of food inside Pakistan destined for Afghanistan. 65,000 tons were

in high seas from the United States, and we just ordered two

weeks ago another 100,000 tons.

That was actually—the decision was made in June, long before

September 11, so over 200,000 tons is either in country or on the

way. I might add 85 percent of the food distributed in Afghanistan

last year was from the United States, 85 percent, and it will be

that high this year as well, and that is fine.

How do we distribute it once it gets inside the country?

WFP then gives it to the private voluntary organizations, and

they have networks. Some of them have been around 20 or 30

years. They know who is in all the communities. They have lists

27

of people. Some of them have Afghan staffs of 1,000 to 2,000 people

on their staffs for one NGO that distributes the food from lists

based on targeting, based on their income levels and the resources

and hunger levels.

If they are malnourished, if they are in displaced camps or refugee camps, and they don’t have any alternative way of feeding

themselves, then UNHCR would—I will let Alan talk about that,

but there is a way of targeting that the NGOs and U.N. agencies

use that ensures that the food goes to the right people. And by the

way, that has continued even now, with all of what is going on, because that is still in place within Afghanistan.

Senator BOXER. I was just going to say—and I don’t need another

round, but other challenges, to make sure those good people don’t

get hurt. We lost some U.N. volunteers, so this is another horrific

challenge for us against this tough situation, this dual-track situation.

Mr. NATSIOS. What we did the week after the catastrophe in the

United States is we knew privately there was going to be a problem in Afghanistan, because the reports were that bin Laden and

al-Qaida was involved in this. We told—and there was—there actually had been a withdrawal of humanitarian troops, NGO workers,

prior to this, because of the arrest of those eight workers. This departure of expatriates took place before September 11, I might add.

It accelerated after September 11, and the instruction we sent

downstairs to OFDA and Food for Peace and the AID network

within the U.S. Government is, Continue to pay the Afghan staff,

because we do not want them leaving their post. we want them to

stay, to the extent they are physically staff, but we don’t want

them to stop the salaries. So we told the NGOs, Please, even

though you can’t do your program immediately in some areas, continue to pay the staff, so these very talented, very dedicated Afghans stay in place, because we are going to rely on them to help

reconstruct the country at some point.

Senator WELLSTONE. Senator Dodd.

Senator DODD. Thanks. Let me ask two or three quick questions,

because the time frame is small. One, I noticed major riots at least

recently in Quetta, if that is the correct pronunciation, the Pakistan community in the southwest. That shows a tremendous increase in the number of refugees in the last 25 days, and 20,000

people have come in to that one area, and I am curious as to

whether or not you have any information that a lot of the anti-U.S.

rallies may be by Taliban supporters who have come in to destabilize in Pakistan, number one.

And, number two, where is the source of heat or fuel that the Afghan population will get in the winter months? What is that situation?

Whether or not you have any information as to whether or not

the Taliban themselves are interfering with any of the efforts of

people to get these food supplies, and I guess it is early.

But last I am just curious. I said almost facetiously this committee should have been conducted by the Western Hemisphere

subcommittee. This food package is in Spanish and in English, and

I presume we have it—it is being dropped in the Afghan tongue.

Is this the language on the package?

28

Mr. NATSIOS. No. They didn’t have time to print those, Senator,

so that is what was dropped.

Senator DODD. That is hard for—you know, English and

Spanish—— Mr. NATSIOS. Most of the people who receive this cannot read,

Senator. About two-thirds of the population does not read, and the

poorest people are the ones who are most likely to die, and they

are the least educated.

Senator DODD. I would rather have you drop it. I don’t care, but

I hope at some point we get creative on how we communicate.

Mr. NATSIOS. On the bags of wheat we are sending in, of which

there will be hundreds of thousands, we had it printed in Hazarah

and Kushnu, the two—Pushtu and Dari, the two principal languages, on the bags with a giant American flag.

And what it says is, Gift of the American people. And so that is

being printed by the United States Department of Agriculture,

which does all the shipping of this food, in the big wheat bags,

which will get to a huge number of people, so—— Senator DODD. There is no way you can put anything on this, a

quick stamp, to say it is safe?

Mr. NATSIOS. It takes a while to produce that, and September 11

is just a few weeks ago.

Senator DODD. I understand, but you understand the point. How

could we have this stuff out—and I realize only 30 percent of the

population is literate, but presumably there would be people

around who could help people read something.

Mr. NATSIOS. The big thing that makes people know it is the

American flag on it, where it came from, and the picture.

But in the bags, they will be in the local languages. Those are

being printed right now as we speak.

Senator DODD. And the food supplies that are coming from the

international community, I would like to see obviously that we get

some credit here. It might also be important to know that food supplies are coming from other nations, including other Arabic countries.

Mr. NATSIOS. Every country that is sending food puts their flag

and their bona fides on the bag.

Senator DODD. An important message is that our efforts are

being joined by the responsible moderate Arab world, and that is— the U.S. flag, it seems to me, is critically important.

Anyway, if you could respond to the other two or three questions.

Mr. NATSIOS. You asked the question on fuel. There are three

ways.

Senator DODD. And the mining, too, whether we have had any

cooperation on the demining efforts, whether we are dropping these

food supplies in areas where we know there is a proliferation of

mines that we helped plant.

Mr. NATSIOS. In terms of the fuel, there are three ways in which

Afghans heat their homes. One is through wood. the second is charcoal, and third, if the cattle herds were still in good shape, the manure is dried, and they use that principally in the highlands and

in the cattle-growing areas.

However, a lot of the cattle have died, and so they are relying

more and more on wood unfortunately. The manure is much more

29

sustainable obviously, but in this case, we can’t use that, because

many of the animals have died. So that is the way they cook their

food and that is the way they heat their homes in the wintertime.

In terms of demining, we are very much aware of this, and that

was taken into account during the plotting of where these drops

are made. The Taliban may well have gotten one or two of these

things, but I have got to tell you, they were not dropped in areas

that have much Taliban presence, and that was just a coincidence.

The areas that we dropped them in were, in fact, based on the two

standards I mentioned earlier, so I don’t think they are getting

them.

Senator DODD. How much specific information do we have about

where the mines are?

Mr. NATSIOS. There was a large-scale NGO/U.N. demining effort

that has been going on since the end of the Soviet period, and they

have maps of the areas. There are, I think, two or three big NGOs

that do nothing but demining and contract firms, and so there is

a lot of data. I have not personally seen it all, but the staffs have,

and there are discussions within DOD with these people on this

issue, because it has been a concern and we don’t want to drop

these in mined areas. Obviously that would be terrible if we did

that.

Senator DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator WELLSTONE. Thank you.

Senator Nelson.

Senator NELSON. Did the Senator from Connecticut need to have

more time? I would certainly yield to him.

Senator DODD. No.

Senator WELLSTONE. He is being very good. He knows we have

another panel.

Senator Nelson.

Senator NELSON. Thank you as well. Thank you.

Last week, our committee went and had a wonderful exchange

of ideas with the Secretary of State. Secretary Rocca was there,

and one of the things that I shared was that I am given to believe

that we have had a tremendous success with our food distribution

in North Korea, that the fact that the food is distributed in sacks

that the people know that it came from the United States, that

they use the sacks for other things, and if we are about trying to

win friends and the hearts and minds of the people, that that is

an important lesson for us to learn. So in addition to dropping the

little packets like this, you mentioned sacks of food. Tell us about

that, and what will the sacks say on them.

Mr. NATSIOS. I have to tell you, I was involved with an NGO

when we did that in North—when I say, we, when the United

States did it, and I have done some writing on the North Korean

famine, and I interviewed refugees up on the Chinese border with

North Korea, and I interviewed one who said he saw the sacks, and

he said, Our Government didn’t tell us, but it said—for the first

time—we had never put in local language until the North Korean

time. We put it in Korean, Gift of the people of the United States,

with a flag.

We have always done it previously in English. This is the first

time we did it. And the reason we did it in Afghanistan is because

30

it was so divisive in North Korea and so successful. I will tell you

a story. The first food shipment that went out to Chongjin, which

is up in the northeast region in North Korea, in the famine—no

food had been delivered for two-and-a-half years by the central government. There was mass starvation.

The first ship that came into the harbor was an American ship.

The North Korean military required the U.S. Government to take

the flag down, because they didn’t want riots in the streets. They

took the flag down, because they couldn’t deliver the food otherwise, but I talked to several WFP logisticians. They said everybody

in the city knew where it came from, because it said it on the bag,

and they said one of the refugees said to me, We now know who

our real enemies are.

We were taught all along it was the United States; it is not the

United States; it is our own government. That is what the refugee

told me.

That one bag he saw said a lot of things to him. the only food

that got in there in two-and-a-half years was from the United

States. It is a very powerful message.

Senator NELSON. And so from that success—and it is my understanding that they not only get the value of the food, but they use

the sacks for things.

Mr. NATSIOS. Absolutely, they do.

Senator NELSON. So what are we going to do in addition to those

little packages?

Mr. NATSIOS. All of the sacks that go in—and we expect between

300,000 and 400,000 tons of food to be delivered from the United

States to Afghanistan in this current fiscal year, this period. The

bags will say on it in the two principal languages, Pushtu and

Dari, Gift of the American people, and there will be a flag, an

American flag, on the bags, and that is how the food will be distributed. They are bags about this big. (Indicating.)

Senator NELSON. It is 110-pound sack generally.

Mr. NATSIOS. Fifty kilos, 110. You are right.

Senator NELSON. All right. Now, you need to know what I just

saw last Friday in the Port of Pensacola. I went there for a different reason. I went there on port security. I was gratified when

I saw a whole warehouse of 110-pound sacks of flour going to

Tajikistan, but the sacks just had USA in red, white and blue.

They don’t read, USA, so they need to say in the native language

so we are getting the credit for it.

Mr. NATSIOS. Senator, I learned some lessons from the North Korean famine. We are beginning to enforce that, and we are going

to continue to do that.

Senator DODD. Soon. You have got to do this quickly. That is important.

Mr. NATSIOS. We gave this order three weeks ago, Senator, in

terms of the printing of the bags.

Senator DODD. This doesn’t take much.

Mr. NATSIOS. We would have brought a copy of the North Korean

bag so you could see it.

Senator NELSON. Other than red, white, and blue, there was no

flag; there was nothing except, USA. And for somebody who doesn’t

read English, they wouldn’t have any idea where it came from.

31

Mr. NATSIOS. There are other means by which we will be making

known how large the aid program is, who is distributing the aid,

what countries are involved, where the food is moving to, because

we believe for humanitarian purposes, it is important that the Afghan people know when shipments are coming in, what their ration

is they are going to get, and it will become clear that is not the

Taliban that is feeding them. The Afghan people already know

that. The Afghan—it is not even a government; it is a movement.

We shouldn’t even call it a regime; it is just a movement.

They have not been feeding the people. Last summer, I said—before September, What is bin Laden doing. He is supposed to love

the Afghan people so much. You know what the NGOs told me? Absolutely nothing. The Taliban is doing nothing.

Senator WELLSTONE. I am going to be abrupt and try to finish

this up, because I am worried about that we won’t give the other

panelists a chance.

Mr. NATSIOS. I apologize.

Senator WELLSTONE. No, no. You have done fine work.

Senator NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that

somebody is going to check this out. Why was a whole warehouse,

of which I am just so grateful that it is going to Tajikistan, but

with this phenomenal success that we have had in North Korea,

you would think that that would be one of the first things that we

would think of when we are sending sacks of flour to Tajikistan.

Mr. NATSIOS. Those particular sacks are for—there is a drought

and a famine—not a famine but a severe food emergency in

Tajikistan now. Those actually weren’t for Afghanistan. They were

for another problem, but you are right on your point. I take it well.

Senator DODD. Korea was the first country?

Mr. NATSIOS. That I am aware of.

Senator DODD. What genius has thought about this? I am

stunned to hear that. This is not terribly difficult, and it is——

Senator NELSON. And it is just so incredibly great for our country

that here we have got a Communist dictator that is constantly trying to tell the people of North Korea how bad we are, and here the

people are just so grateful to America as a result of what they are

getting.

Senator WELLSTONE. The Senator from the Florida and the Senator from Connecticut have been heard.

[General laughter.]

Senator NELSON. I want to know, who are we going to hear from

and when are we going to hear.

Senator DODD. You ought to drop some of those in Cuba.

[General laughter.]

Senator WELLSTONE. Believe me, there will be follow-up from the

Senator from Florida. We thank all three of you.

Let me call the next panel up. Mr. Nicolas de Torrente, executive

director of Doctors Without Borders; Mr. Ken Bacon, president of

Refugees International; and Eleanor Smeal, president, Feminist

Majority. And I would ask unanimous consent that Senator Enzi’s

statement go in the record, and a statement from Human Rights

Watch be included in the record as well.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael B. Enzi follows:]

32

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MICHAEL B. ENZI

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to express my support for

President Bush and the actions he has taken in Afghanistan, especially in the area

of humanitarian aid. As we are all too aware, the people of Afghanistan have suffered over two decades of turmoil, nearly four years of drought, and the oppressive

and illegitimate rule of the Taliban regime. I am pleased that the United States has

been a staunch supporter of the Afghan people and the largest contributor of humanitarian aid. In fact, since 1979 the United States has contributed more than $1

billion in humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people.

I believe President Bush is continuing our strong support with his proposal to con- tribute an additional $320 million in humanitarian assistance. The aid is on its way

and the United States has already begun to airlift food. In just two airdrops, nearly

75,000 daily rations were distributed to various locations in Afghanistan. Two days

ago World Food Program convoys carrying 1,000 tons of wheat left Pakistan and a

convoy carrying 100 tons of wheat recently left Iran. While there are millions more

in need of food, this is just the beginning. The United States currently has over

165,000 tons of wheat on ships headed for the region. We are working with neighboring countries to distribute food within Afghanistan. Although international relief

workers are no longer in the country, local workers are continuing the effort to distribute food and medicine. Winter, however, is quickly approaching and the need for

immediate assistance for the Afghan people is as crucial as ever. The mountainous

country with little remaining infrastructure leaves too many communities stranded

for the long winter months.

It is important to reiterate, we are not fighting the Afghan people, we are fighting

terrorism. While we oppose the terrorists within Afghanistan, we must proceed with

our aid efforts throughout the country. I am confident that President Bush and his

Administration will continue to support and aid the people of Afghanistan as we

fight terrorism.

[The prepared statement of Human Rights Watch follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

AFGHANISTAN AND REFUGEES: NEED FOR HUMANITARIAN ACTION

Twenty years of civil war, political turmoil, continuing human rights violations

and recent drought have already displaced more than five million of Afghanistan’s population. Some four million refugees are displaced in neighboring countries and

across the world, while another one million people are internally displaced within

Afghanistan. Before September 11, severe drought had brought the country to the

verge of famine and existing Taliban restrictions on relief agencies had severely

hampered the delivery of assistance and civilian access to basic services.

Now that U.S. and British air strikes have begun, the humanitarian situation is

even more urgent. Unfortunately, the recent strikes killed four workers involved in

demining operations inside Afghanistan, which is considered one of the most heavily

mined countries in the world. Landmines are concentrated in the border regions to

which refugees are likely to flee.

If the situation was bad for Afghan civilians, displaced persons, and refugees before the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington D.C., it only worsened

in the three weeks afterwards. Conditions inside Afghanistan as of early October

have deteriorated dramatically and aid agencies are warning of a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions.

The withdrawal of all international relief agency staff after the September 11 attacks when the Taliban declared that it could no longer guarantee their security has

exacerbated an already dire situation. Border closures have severed the supply of

aid into Afghanistan. At the same time the Taliban are reported to have confiscated

food supplies from the United Nations and relief agencies and shut down U.N. communication networks. Many relief agencies report that they have been unable to

contact their local staff since the September 11 attacks and thus information about

conditions inside the country is scant. The World Food Program (WFP) warned

shortly after the attacks that food supplies inside the country could only last two

to three weeks. Limited food deliveries were resumed to the borders of northern and

western Afghanistan at the end of September, but as of October 8, WFP announced

that all food deliveries inside and outside the borders of Afghanistan had been

stopped in response to the U.S. military air strikes. Airdrops by the U.S. military

of food and medical supplies have been met with skepticism by aid agencies outside

the U.N. system, because of the lack of in-country staff to deliver the supplies and

to properly administer medicines to needy populations.

33

After the September 11 attacks, fear of retaliatory military action and forced conscription by the Taliban, politically motivated attacks by the Taliban against particular ethnic groups believed to be sympathetic to the opposition, as well as the

ongoing humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan have caused tens of thousands of Afghans to flee, most of them towards Pakistan.

All six countries neighboring Afghanistan, including Pakistan, Iran, Tajikistan,

Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and China, officially closed their borders to refugees

both on security grounds and citing an inability to economically provide for more

refugees. Like Pakistan and Iran, Tajikistan’s borders had been closed to Afghan

refugees for the past year. Pakistan’s actions were reportedly in direct response to

a request from the U.S. to strengthen security in an effort to apprehend those responsible for the U.S. attacks. Although tens of thousands of refugees have been

able to cross into Pakistan, thousands more—most of them women and children—

have been trapped at the border with no shelter, food, water, or medical care.

UNHCR has reported that several women have given birth while waiting to cross

the border into Afghanistan.

While countries in the region do face legitimate security concerns at this time,

measures must be found to address these concerns without denying refuge to those

fleeing civil conflict, human rights violations, the fear of military threats and conscription, and the looming humanitarian crisis inside Afghanistan.

Host and donor governments, in collaboration with the United Nations, should

keep all borders open to fleeing refugees in line with neighboring countries’ international obligations, while simultaneously developing a coordinated strategy to effectively identify and separate militants and armed elements from civilian refugees.

Pakistan

Pakistan is host to some two million Afghan refugees, and despite having officially

closed its borders, many more Afghans are crossing into Pakistan each day. Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan is 1,560 miles long, making it difficult to control.

The current humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan and impending U.S. military action

has led to an increased influx of refugees, particularly at the Chanam border crossing near Quetta in Balochistan province. Approximately 15,000 refugees have

reached the Chanam border; attempts to prevent thousands more Afghans from

crossing have led to clashes between border guards and refugees. Concerned about

deteriorating humanitarian and security conditions for refugees trapped at the

Chanam border crossing, UNHCR was negotiating with the Pakistan authorities to

allow the refugees entry into Pakistan. In a report on October 1, however, UNHCR

stated that thousands of the refugees had left the border area, supposedly retreating

back into Afghanistan and seeking other ways into Pakistan. Since then, each day

several hundred refugees arrive in Pakistan via mountain roads, but as of October

8, Pakistan continues to officially refuse to re-open its borders. The Taliban have

also established checkpoints along routes to Pakistan to prevent those without passports and visas from leaving the country.

UNHCR is preparing to provide relief to those fleeing the country and the Pakistan government has stated that it will provide assistance to those refugees who

manage to enter the country. Some 100 new refugee sites have been identified by

the Pakistan authorities in the North West Frontier Province, which could accommodate up to one million people. The sites are located in what are known as Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas—largely lawless territories close to the

Afghanistan border. The new sites lack adequate water supply and infrastructure

and Human Rights Watch is concerned by reports that refugees may be held under

detention-like conditions. Location of refugee camps in these areas could seriously

endanger the well-being, safety and security of the refugees. International standards

stipulate that refugee camps should be located at a safe distance from international

borders to avoid cross-border attacks or military incursions and that refugees should

not be held in detention-like conditions. In addition, all sites currently identified

lack adequate water, an issue that promises to plague internally displaced and refugee populations throughout the region. On October 8, UNHCR offices were stoned

and personnel were unable to travel to border regions because of demonstrations in

Quetta and Peshawar. The UNICEF office in Quetta was burned by protesters, as

were the offices of two NGOs working with refugees located in the northwest border

regions.

Iran

Iran’s frontier with Afghanistan is 560 miles long. In the wake of proposed U.S.

military action in Afghanistan, Iran has closed its border expecting large numbers

of Afghan refugees to attempt to cross. Iran has indicated that it wishes to provide

humanitarian assistance only inside Afghanistan with the consent of the Taliban.

34

To this end, seven refugee camps have been proposed for the border region between

Afghanistan and Iran, but on Afghan soil. These camps will be designed to hold a

maximum of 200,000 refugees between them. Iranian newspapers have reported

that the interior ministry called upon Iranian relief organizations to provide emergency aid, although relief workers have so far reported that few refugees have

reached the Iranian border. The Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees

(UNHCR) reported that the Iranian Red Crescent moved tons of relief items to the

border in preparation for possible new arrivals. So far, Iran has not responded to

calls from UNHCR or international NGOs to officially reopen its borders, although

reportedly small numbers of refugees are being allowed to cross. Recent reports indicate that hundreds of Afghans seeking refuge from the military air strikes were unable to cross into Iran because of border closures. Iran has sent extra troops into

the eastern border region to maintain security and keep the borders closed.

Tajikistan

Recovering from its own 1992–1997 civil war, the situation in Tajikistan is still

unstable. The war, which caused massive internal displacement, has compounded

the country’s problems. Tajikistan’s frontier with Afghanistan has been closed since

September 2000. The Tajikistan government, unable to adequately defend the border itself has been relying on thousands of Russian Federal border guards to guard

its frontiers.

There are currently over 10,000 internally displaced Afghans on islands in the

Pyanj River, waiting for an opportunity to cross into Tajikistan, some of whom receive assistance from aid agencies. UNHCR has estimated that as many as 50,000

Afghans in neighboring provinces close to the border may also leave their homes

should the current crisis escalate. Other estimates put this figure as high as

120,000. On September 20, the President of Tajikistan, Emomali Rakhmonov, stated

that the country would not be prepared to let a single refugee into the country. He

cited a threat of infiltration by Islamic militants as well as serious economic problems as his major concerns.

China, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan

All three other countries have also closed their borders. China’s relatively narrow

border with Afghanistan is the least accessible route out of the country.

Uzbekistan’s frontier has been reinforced, with the government citing concerns

about Islamic militancy as the justification. Turkmenistan’s foreign minister indicated a willingness to work with UNHCR, although it is not clear whether this

means that the border would reopen in the event of an influx of refugees.

Policy Recommendations

There is an urgent need for international cooperation to address the humanitarian

crisis inside Afghanistan, to assist countries in the region to cope with large-scale

refugee flows, and for western states to take their share of Afghan refugees. Countries should not use legitimate security concerns in the face of the September 11

attacks as an opportunity to close their borders or introduce legislation that further

restricts the rights of all refugees, asylum seekers, migrants, or other non-citizens.

Afghanistan’s neighbors should work quickly to establish procedures, in conjunction with UNHCR and donor governments, to separate armed elements from refugees. In this way they can keep their borders open and comply with their obligations

under international refugee law, as well as their humanitarian obligations, while

maintaining national security. Urgent steps should be taken to help these countries

to cope with the potential mass influx of refugees.

Human Rights Watch makes the following recommendations.

To the Taliban authorities

• As a matter of urgency allow international relief and U.N. agencies full, free,

and unimpeded humanitarian access to all civilians inside Afghanistan, including the internally displaced, with full security guarantees.

• Cease immediately the confiscation of humanitarian supplies from relief and

U.N. agencies and restore to the extent possible full communication networks

for U.N. and relief agencies.

To neighboring countries

• Re-open borders to refugees from Afghanistan and provide them with adequate

protection.

• The deportation of Afghan refugees must cease immediately.

35

• As a matter of urgency and in collaboration with donor governments and United

Nations agencies, develop a coordinated strategy to effectively identify and separate militants and armed elements from civilian refugees. Separation should

take place inside host countries at the border and involve an international monitoring presence.

• The establishment of cross-border camps, safe havens, or humanitarian zones

within Afghanistan should not be considered as an alternative to refuge in

neighboring countries.

• Refugee camps should be established in safe, accessible areas in neighboring

countries and located at a safe distance from international borders in accordance with international refugee protection standards. Camps should be set up

in areas with adequate infrastructure and water. supply and humanitarian

agencies should have full, free and unimpeded access to the camps. Refugees

should not be held in camps under detention-like conditions.

To governments in industrialized countries

• Continue to allow asylum seekers access to fair and efficient asylum determination procedures. Tougher immigration controls, including anti-terrorist and antismuggling measures, should not infringe on the rights of all asylum seekers to

access fair and efficient asylum determination procedures, and should in no way

undermine government’s international obligations prohibiting arbitrary and indefinite detention and the return of refugees and asylum seekers to territories

where their lives or freedom may be threatened.

• Urgent measures must be taken to counteract and prevent growing xenophobic

and racist attacks against nationals, immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees

on the basis of their ethnic origin, nationality, religious and political beliefs and

backgrounds. Increased protection should be provided to these groups, and government leaders should take the lead in countering racial, religious, or ethnic

discrimination.

• Immigration control measures must include procedural safeguards in conformity

with international standards for migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers arrested, detained, and in the process of deportation.

To donor governments

• The Bush Administration’s commitment of $320 million in immediate humanitarian aid both for refugees and the population inside Afghanistan is a good

start, but clearly more is needed.

• International responsibility-sharing measures should be urgently put in place to

respond to the humanitarian crisis inside Afghanistan and potential refugee

flows.

• Immediate humanitarian assistance must be provided to civilians inside Afghanistan to prevent further humanitarian disaster and options for ensuring

that assistance reaches those most in need, especially the internally displaced,

must be urgently explored.

• Urgently provide international assistance to neighboring countries and countries in the region to cope with the potential outflow of refugees from Afghanistan.

• Governments outside the region, particularly industrialized states, should explore emergency resettlement possibilities for Afghan refugees.

Senator WELLSTONE. If I could bring the hearing to order, we

have got a very important panel to hear from, and we will start

with Mr. de Torrente.

STATEMENT OF MR. NICOLAS DE TORRENTE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS, NEW YORK, NEW

YORK

Mr. DE TORRENTE. Thank you, Senator Wellstone. Ladies and

gentlemen, I am very grateful to Senator Boxer.

Senator WELLSTONE. Mr. de Torrente, excuse me. As those of you

who leave the room, if you could please keep your conversation out

of the room, it would be very, very helpful to us.

36

Mr. DE TORRENTE. I am very grateful to you, Senator Boxer and

Senator Wellstone, for convening this important hearing today and

for giving me the opportunity to present Doctors Without Borders’ perspective on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan.

Before doing so, I would first like to express the deep shock of

all of MSF’s staff felt around the world following the September 11

attack on the United States and extent our condolences to the

friends and families of the victims here.

These deliberate attacks which indiscriminately targeted civilians were really an all-out assault on the fundamental values and

principles that we as a humanitarian organization hold so dear.

Turning now to the very severe humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, I think for the sake of the short amount of time we have in

front of us, it has been very well described by others before me.

Suffice it to say that even before September 11, we were very concerned about the situation.

Doctors Without Borders has 70 international volunteers and

over 400 Afghan staff present in all areas of the country. we are

running hospitals, clinics, providing essential health care services,

and responding to emergencies there.

With the epidemics and health care problems resulting from population displacement and malnutrition, through our intervention

we witnessed a clear deterioration, especially in nutritional terms,

which Mr. Natsios has described. we witnessed also increasing population displacement and very severe medical problems leading to

malnutrition such as scurvy epidemics in the north of the country

earlier this year, cholera epidemics, and other problems of the like.

Since September 11, the rising tensions and the grave uncertainty about the security situation led to the withdrawal of MSF

and other international humanitarian staff. This is jeopardizing the

programs that are providing a lifeline to the vulnerable Afghan

population. It also makes it very difficult to know what is actually

going on right now inside the country. Today our main goal is to

bring our teams back up to full capacity. To do this, we require

that all parties to the conflict guarantee safe and unhindered access to the Afghan civilians in need.

Up until very recently, convoys of food and medical supplies were

resupplying our programs in Mazar-i-Sharif, Herat, and Kabul. Our

staff remains able and committed, and we are able to monitor the

situation through some of them, and so although the supplies and

the size of the teams are still insufficient, these programs remain

important sources of medical and nutritional assistance to the Afghan population.

The main point I would like to raise today is our concern regarding the impact that military actions have on humanitarian actions

inside of Afghanistan and why we at MSF feel it is so important

to maintain a clear distinction between these two endeavors. The

United States has stated clearly that the delivery of aid is an integral component of its comprehensive anti-terrorism strategy, and

we have heard a lot about that this afternoon.

President Bush’s recently announced aid package is a reflection

of this approach, and it builds on the longstanding generosity of

the U.S. Government and people for assistance programs toward

Afghanistan. One of the key objectives of the strategy is to win over

37

public support in Afghanistan and elsewhere for the United

States’s comprehensive assault on terrorism by conveying the message that the U.S. strikes at the Taliban leadership and Osama bin

Laden network, but reaches out to the Afghan civilians.

Now, clearly there is an enormous need for assistance, especially

as winter approaches. However, we have a number of concerns

about the blurring of lines between the current military and humanitarian actions. First of all, I would like to make a quick point

about the air drops themselves. Air drops of food by the U.S. military, even if they are well-intentioned, they are not really the most

effective means of meeting the enormous humanitarian needs of

the Afghan people.

To be effective, air drops should include the clear identification

of beneficiaries, careful monitoring of the distribution of assistance,

and transparency and implementation of the operation. Our experience has taught us that delivering untargeted and unmonitored relief is generally ineffective and can even be potentially harmful.

Most importantly, however, we believe that the military and humanitarian agendas and activities should be clearly separated.

Now, this is not about semantics or abstract principles, but it has

really very direct implications in terms of the security of humanitarian staff and access to populations in need. The Geneva conventions define humanitarian action as neutral, independent, and impartial. This means that humanitarian actors should not take sides

and should be free from political influence so that they can go after

their objective single-mindedly, to impartially help people solely

based on the criteria of need.

Now, if aid is not perceived to be entirely neutral and independent of political objectives, it can be claimed by one or both

sides as a part of the war effort. Aid and aid workers can then become targets of war. When aid is delivered by military actors, it becomes increasingly difficult to convince armed factions on the

ground of the impartial objectives of western humanitarian organizations in these very volatile and politically charged environments.

Recent attacks on U.N. offices in Quetta, Pakistan, are just one

reflection of this problem, and it is not a new one. In Somalia, the

confusion of roles and agendas of the political and military actors

with those of the humanitarian organizations resulted in ultimately neither side being able to reach their objectives and with

dramatic consequences for both.

What is really needed now is a large-scale independent humanitarian relief effort aimed at directly reaching those most in need

in Afghanistan and neighboring countries. I will come back to that

in a short while.

Finally, I would just turn to the situation of Afghan refugees in

recent months. In addition to the approximately 4 million of refugees in neighboring countries, hundreds of thousands of Afghans

have fled their country in search of security and assistance abroad.

We have seen over 400,000 people moving to Iran in the last six

months and some 200,000 to Pakistan over the last year or so.

Our work with a large number of these refugees has shown that

fear of violation and persecution have been a key factor in this population’s decision to leave the country, and many also seek to escape the ravages of the drought. Knowing the dire medical and nuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:27 May 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 75946 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
38

tritional consequences of massive displacement—and, again, Mr.

Natsios explained this very well—we understand why one important reason to inject food into Afghanistan may be to prevent further displacement.

But it is important to remember that these necessary aid efforts,

even if they are successful, cannot provide a guarantee of protection for the civilian population. the right of the Afghans to seek

safe asylum must be respected.

MSF is extremely concerned with the closing of all international

borders with Afghanistan and the containment of the population

that results from it. Non-refoulement, which is the right not to be

forcibly returned to an insecure area, must also be upheld. Currently we have not witnessed the expected mass influx of Afghans

across international borders in recent weeks.

There has been much speculation as to the reasons for this. Have

Afghans abandoned the more exposed larger towns and taken shelter in the countryside? Have they been blocked along the roads?

We don’t know for sure, but what is certain is that borders remain

officially closed with even tighter controls than before. Only those

who can afford the high price of smugglers can flee, leaving the

poorest and most vulnerable behind.

We are also very concerned that despite the ongoing preparations

of aid agencies that are led by UNHCR and others, and including

MFS, that despite these preparations, were refugees to arrive in

big numbers today, they would not be adequately protected and assisted in host countries. For a number of years, despite their longstanding hospitality, Pakistan and Iran have been increasingly reluctant to accept newcomers.

New signs that have been now identified for refugee camps in

Pakistan are situated in insecure and inaccessible areas very close

to the border. In these locations, the safety of the refugees and of

the aid workers who would try to assist them is very far from assured. Moreover, these are desolate areas where water and shade

are in very scarce supply.

So to conclude, what is critical for MSF is in the midst of this

conflict, that as many dimensions, the fundamental needs of protection and relief for the Afghan people are met, we would like to underline the following points:

The rights of the Afghan civilian population to safety and humanitarian assistance should be assured by all parties to the conflict by maintaining a clear distinction between military actions on

the one hand and aid operations on the other. The U.S. Government will contribute to the future involvement of the independent

and impartial humanitarian actors in Afghanistan.

The U.S. Government should also insist on the opening of borders of neighboring countries to Afghan refugees on a large-scale

and independent humanitarian relief operation, and we have heard

about it as well in some of the testimony earlier today. That should

be led by international, nongovernmental organizations. It is needed inside and outside Afghanistan. This large-scale, independent effort would provide effective assistance and protection to the civilian

population solely on the basis of assessed needs in an impartial. In

neighboring countries, the conditions for refugees current and future must be substantially improved.

39

Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful for this opportunity to express

our concerns today in front of the Senate Committee on Foreign

Relations. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nicolas de Torrente follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NICOLAS DE TORRENTE, PH.D.

Ladies and Gentleman: I am grateful to Senator Wellstone and his staff for convening this hearing today and for giving me the opportunity to present Doctors

Without Borders/Me ́decins Sans Frontie`res (MSF)’s perspective on the humanitarian

situation in Afghanistan.

First of all, I would like to express the deep shock that all MSF staff and volunteers around the world felt following the September 11 attacks on the United States

and extend our condolences to the friends and families of the victims. These deliberate attacks, which indiscriminately targeted civilians, were an all-out assault on

the fundamental values and principles that we as a humanitarian organization hold

so dear. We have been extremely impressed by the rescue and recovery operations

in New York, and, in a modest way, were able to contribute to this effort by providing an MSF mental health team experienced in mass trauma to support New

York’s own excellent mental health professionals.

I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify, up front, some confusion regarding MSF’s stance on the U.S. actions taken since Sunday. As a humanitarian

organization, our concern with any military actions, including those undertaken by

U.S. forces in Afghanistan, is with their impact on the civilian population. Our intention is also to raise concerns regarding the blurring of lines between military and

aid activities—such a mixing of roles has the potential to undermine the provision

of larger-scale humanitarian assistance by independent, non-governmental actors to

the most vulnerable populations in Afghanistan, as I would like to explain, below.

First, please allow me to briefly share with you the salient features of the severe

humanitarian crisis currently facing Afghanistan.

THE SEVERE HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN AFGHANISTAN

MSF has been working in Afghanistan for over 20 years. In fact, I just returned

from Faizabad, in the Northern Alliance-held territory, in late August. At that time,

MSF had over 70 international volunteers and over 400 Afghan staff present in all

areas of Afghanistan. MSF volunteers were running hospitals, clinics, providing essential health care services and responding to emergencies, particularly epidemics,

and health problems resulting from population displacement and malnutrition.

Over 20 years of war and three years of uninterrupted drought have combined

to force hundreds of thousands of Afghans from their homes, exposing them to increasing insecurity, disease and hunger.

Today, due to internal conflict and regional tensions, civilians are trapped within

the cycle of violence, and are suffering from persecution, repression and other violations of international humanitarian law from different sides.

The drought has compounded the effects of the ongoing conflict by gradually depleting people’s coping mechanisms. Our surveys show a consistent deterioration of

the nutritional situation in all areas, now reaching emergency levels for millions of

people (more than 10 percent of children under 5 were measured as being acutely

malnourished). There have recently been outbreaks of scurvy (vitamin C deficiency)

and epidemics of diseases (cholera, measles, diarrhea) that easily kill malnourished

children. We are concerned that with high levels of malnutrition, these people face

a long winter before there is even the chance of a new harvest.

Throughout Afghanistan, war and drought has resulted in massive displacement.

In recent months, hundreds of thousands of people have been leaving their lands,

homes and families out of fear or hunger or both, and fleeing to vast makeshift

camps around the major cities or to neighboring countries.

For MSF, carrying out effective humanitarian action requires the constant presence of our teams on the ground so they can assess the needs of the civilians, provide assistance to the most vulnerable, and evaluate the impact of our programs on

the target population. In Afghanistan, it has been difficult to gain the necessary

conditions for access and appropriate delivery of humanitarian assistance, especially

to women, but it has been possible. Throughout our 20 years in Afghanistan, maintaining direct contact with the population and dialogue with the different actors, as

well as demonstrating focused and clear humanitarian goals has been critical to our

operations. This has become more difficult in recent years for several reasons, including the increasing restrictions on NGO operations by the Taliban regime.

40

Since September 11, rising tensions, and grave uncertainty about the security situation led to the withdrawal of MSF and other international humanitarian staff.

This is jeopardizing the programs that provide a lifeline to the vulnerable Afghan

population, and also makes it difficult to really know what is happening inside the

country.

Today, our main goal is to bring our teams back up to full capacity. To do this,

we require that all parties to the conflict guarantee safe and unhindered access to

the Afghan civilians in need. Up until the air strikes, convoys of food and medical

supplies were resupplying our programs in Mazar-i-Sharif, Herat and Kabul. Our

Afghan staff remains in the country, very committed and able, and we are able to

monitor the situation somewhat through communication with some of them. Although the supplies and the size of the teams are currently insufficient, these programs remain important sources of medical and nutritional assistance to the Afghan

population. These efforts are currently suspended due to the military operation.

A main point I would like to raise today is our concern regarding the impact that

military actions have on humanitarian actions inside Afghanistan, and why we in

MSF feel it is so important to maintain a clear distinction between these two endeavors. Allow me to elaborate more on this latter point.

CONCERNS REGARDING INTEGRATING HUMANITARIAN OPERATIONS

WITHIN A MILITARY STRATEGY

The U.S. has stated clearly that the delivery of aid is an integral component of

its comprehensive anti-terrorism strategy. President Bush’s recently announced

$320 million aid package is a reflection of this approach, building on the longstanding generosity of the U.S. government for assistance programs towards Afghanistan. One of the key objectives of this strategy is to win over public support

in Afghanistan and elsewhere for the US’s comprehensive assault on terrorism, by

conveying the message that the U.S. strikes at the Taliban leadership and Osamabin-Laden network, but reaches out to Afghan civilians. Clearly, there is an enormous need for assistance, especially as winter approaches. However, we have a

number of concerns about the blurring of lines between the current military and humanitarian actions.

First, I would like to make a quick point on the airdrops themselves. As has already been stated by administration officials, air drops of food by the U.S. military,

even if well-intentioned, are not the most effective means of meeting the enormous

humanitarian needs of the Afghan people. Air drops should include the clear identification of beneficiaries, careful monitoring of the distribution of assistance, and

transparency in implementation of the operation. Our experience has taught us that

delivering untargeted and unmonitored relief is generally ineffective and can even

be potentially harmful. For instance, medicines need to be delivered through health

structures and administered by qualified health staff if they are to be effective, and

not risk causing more harm than good. Malnourished persons require specialized

food and care. By packaging individual rations, the U.S. military’s intention is to

limit diversion of aid into the hands of military forces. However, this still does not

ensure that the aid benefits those who need it most. Aid agencies on the ground

have done extensive work to identify and target those most in need, whether they

are displaced persons in camps or widow-headed household in major cities. Without

independent assessments and monitoring on the ground, it will be very difficult to

be convinced that airdrops have reached these people.

Most importantly, however, we believe that the military and humanitarian agendas and activities should be clearly separated. This is not about semantics or abstract principles, this has very direct implications in terms of security of humanitarian staff and access to populations in need.

The Geneva Conventions defines humanitarian action as neutral, independent

and impartial. This means that humanitarian actors should not take sides and

should be free from political influence so they can go after their objectives singlemindedly—to impartially help people based solely on criteria of need. If aid is not

perceived to be entirely neutral and independent of political objectives it can be

claimed by one or both sides as a part of the war effort. Aid and aid workers can

then become targets of war.

Gaining access and providing assistance to vulnerable populations under the sway

of armed factions in a politically charged climate is always very difficult. Ultimately,

it rests on demonstrating that the motives for helping the civilians are purely humanitarian. By making aid delivery an essential means of reaching its political and

military objectives, the U.S.-led effort could well taint those independent and impartial humanitarian actors whose programs have provided the bulk of the assistance

to Afghans for many years, and whose efforts will be needed for years more.

41

In the aftermath of the current events, it will be increasingly difficult to convince

armed factions of the impartial objectives of western humanitarian organizations in

very volatile and politically charged environments. Recent attacks on UN offices in

Quetta, Pakistan, are a reflection of this problem. And it is not a new one: in Somalia, the confusion of roles and agendas of the political and military actors with those

of humanitarian organizations resulted in neither side being able to reach their objectives, with dramatic consequences for both.

What is needed now is a large-scale independent humanitarian relief effort aimed

directly at reaching those most in need in Afghanistan and neighboring countries.

This response could be provided by independent humanitarian organizations and

UN agencies. All parties to the conflict, including the Taliban, must allow for the

delivery of large-scale convoys of basic foodstuffs and medicines by humanitarian actors who can ensure that it is delivered to those who need it.

AFGHAN REFUGEES

In recent months, in addition to the approximately 4 million refugees in neighboring countries, hundreds of thousands of Afghans have fled their country in

search of security and assistance abroad: over 400,000 to Iran, and some 200,000

to Pakistan. Our work with a large number of these refugees has shown that fear,

violence and persecution have been a key factor in this population’s decision to leave

the country. Many also seek to escape the ravages of the drought.

Knowing the dire medical and nutritional consequences of massive displacement,

we understand why one important reason to inject food aid into Afghanistan may

be to prevent further displacement. But it is important to remember that these necessary aid efforts, even if they are successful, cannot provide a guarantee of protection for the civilian population. The right of the Afghans to seek safe asylum must

be respected. MSF is extremely concerned with the closing of all international borders with Afghanistan and the containment of the population. Non-refoulement, or

the right not to be forcibly returned to an insecure area must also be upheld.

Currently, we have not witnessed the expected mass influx of Afghans across

international borders. There is much speculation as to the reasons for this: have Afghans abandoned the more exposed, larger towns and taken shelter in the countryside? Have they been blocked along the roads? We don’t know for sure, but what

is certain is that borders remain officially closed, with even tighter controls than

before. Only those who can afford the high price of smugglers can flee, leaving the

poorest and most vulnerable behind.

We are also very concerned that, despite the ongoing preparations of aid agencies,

led by UNHCR and including MSF, were refugees to arrive in big numbers today,

they would not be adequately protected and assisted in host countries. For a number

of years, Pakistan and Iran have been increasingly reluctant to accept newcomers,

and our ongoing experience working in Jalozai camp in Peshawar shows how difficult it is to assist Afghan refugees in Pakistan. New sites that have been identified

for refugee camps in Pakistan are situated in insecure and inaccessible areas close

to the border. In these locations, the safety of the refugees, and of the aid workers

who would try to assist them, is far from assured. Moreover, these are desolate

areas, where water and shade are in very scarce supply.

The borders must be opened to allow refugees to flee warfare and persecution. The

internationally recognized right to seek protection and receive asylum in neighboring countries must be upheld. Adequate steps to receive refugees in safe and appropriate conditions must be taken.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, what is critical for MSF is that, in the midst of conflict, the fundamental needs of protection and relief for the Afghan people are met.

Therefore MSF would like to underline the following points:

• The rights of the Afghan civilian population to safety and humanitarian assistance should be assured by all parties to the conflict,

• By maintaining a clear distinction between military actions and aid operations,

the U.S. government will contribute to the future involvement of independent

and impartial humanitarian actors in Afghanistan,

• The U.S. Government should insist on the opening of the borders of neighboring

countries to Afghan refugees,

• A large-scale independent humanitarian relief operation led by international

and non-governmental organizations is needed inside and outside Afghanistan

to provide effective assistance and protection to the civilian population, solely

on the basis of assessed needs and in an impartial fashion. In neighboring counVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:27 May 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 75946 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
42

tries, the conditions for refugees—current and future—must be substantially

improved.

Mr. Chairman, we are grateful for the opportunity to express our concerns today

in front of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Senator WELLSTONE. Thank you.

Mr. Bacon.

STATEMENT OF MR. KEN BACON, PRESIDENT, REFUGEES

INTERNATIONAL, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. BACON. Thank you, Senator Wellstone. I want to thank you

and Senator Boxer for holding this very timely hearing. It is timely, because it comes at a time when the U.S. is pursuing two imperatives. One is to attack terrorists and their protectors in Afghanistan, and, two, to feed the Afghan people. It is a campaign,

as Prime Minister Blair has said, of bombs and bread.

I want to just make four points in order to leave time for questions. First, as has been amply documented here, Afghanistan has

been a huge humanitarian crisis for years.

Prior to September 11, the World Food Program of the United

Nations was providing rations to 3.8 million people. It had planned

to step up to 5.5 million people even before September 11, and now,

of course, the needs are 50,000 metric tons a month to meet the

population in need of 5.5 to 7 million people.

Second, the U.S. has played a leading role in responding to the

humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, and that leadership continues.

Since September 11, the U.S. has allocated $320 million to meet

the humanitarian needs in Afghanistan and for Afghan refugees in

neighboring countries. It is important to note that this is new

money. It does not rob Peter to pay Paul. You are not taking money

from the humanitarian aid for Africa or the Balkans. This is new

money, and therefore, it is a very important addition.

The U.S. has acted quickly and generously to meet growing humanitarian needs in Afghanistan, and they should be applauded for

this. Air drops of food are just one sign that the administration has

incorporated humanitarian needs into its military, diplomatic, and

economic responses to the attack. While the air drops of food are

inefficient and expensive, they are better than nothing.

To be successful in meeting humanitarian needs, the U.S. must

work with the United Nations and neighboring countries to resume

significant food deliveries to Afghanistan over land.

Refugees International recommends a strategy of letting the

country with food by the most efficient and effective means.

Available cross-border shipping by truck from Pakistan, Iran and

the former Soviet republics in the north offer the best possibility

to transport the maximum amount of food to areas with concentrations of vulnerable people.

This effort needs to begin at once as winter weather, especially

in the north, will impair road transport. I was very glad to hear

the news today that the World Food Program has started deliveries

from four neighboring countries.

Senator WELLSTONE. And the question is whether that will be

sustained or not.

Mr. BACON. That is the question, and only time will tell, but I

think it does show that after suspending the deliveries on Sunday,

43

that they have moved as quickly as possible to restart deliveries,

and this is a good sign indeed. I might also point out it is necessary

to deliver seeds. Food isn’t enough. We have to do more than just

meet the immediate needs.

We have to prepare people to support themselves, and as Andrew

Natsios pointed out, people have been eating their seed because

they have no other food, so it is very important over the next

month, and there is really—this is urgent, because there is probably only four to five weeks left in time to deliver seed for planting

for the spring wheat crop, very important to get seeds in there as

quickly as possible, particularly seeds that have been tested to

grow in this climate.

My third point: While the current U.S. commitment is a good

start, it is not enough. Given the magnitudes of the needs in Afghanistan and the likelihood that reconstruction assistance will be

badly needed in the aftermath of a military campaign, it is probably best to view the $320 million as a down payment. We clearly

need something of the magnitude of the Biden proposal. It might

even be too small.

Fourth, this is something that Congress, I think, should pay attention to for this crisis and future crises. the crisis in Afghanistan

is extremely complex. The response involves military, economic,

diplomatic, and humanitarian pieces. A lesson that clearly emerges

from similar crises over the past decade is the importance of designating a cabinet-level officer, specifically and solely to take responsibility for humanitarian issues, in other words, the humanitarian

coordinator.

In recent weeks, the President has announced a coordinator for

homeland defense and a coordinator for counter-terrorism programs. I think the humanitarian program should have an equal

stature at the table when the decisions are made.

Let me conclude with this very brief summary. Refugees are a

sign of instability. Frequently refugees flee a country where the

government does not work or fails to protect its own people. The

immediate challenge is to meet the humanitarian needs of millions

of Afghans, both those in the country and those who have already

fled. After the current crisis, the U.S. and its allies with face a

longer-term task of helping Afghanistan to become stable and prosperous.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ken Bacon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH H. BACON

At the outset, I want to thank Senator Paul Wellstone, the Chairman, of the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, for organizing this hearing on

Afghanistan’s humanitarian crisis. This hearing could not be more timely, because

it comes as the U.S. is attacking terrorists and their protectors in Afghanistan,

while moving to feed the Afghan people, a campaign of bombs and bread.

Afghanistan was one of the largest crises of displacement in the world well before

the events of September 11, 2001. After more than 20 years of conflict, three years

of drought, and the repressive policies of the Taliban regime, four million Afghans

had sought refuge in neighboring countries, with as many as two million each in

Pakistan and Iran. Inside the country some 800,000 people were displaced. The

United Nations World Food Program (WFP) was providing daily rations to 3.8 million people and were preparing to increase the number fed to a total of 5.5 million

44

through the long winter season. The United States was the leading funder of relief

efforts for the Afghan people, providing $183 million in FY 2001.

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, it

became clear that the initial focus of U.S. military retaliation would be in Afghanistan. Refugees International, joined by other humanitarian non-governmental organizations, immediately began pressing the Administration to recognize two imperatives: (1) the humanitarian imperative to continue to respond to the needs of the

millions of vulnerable Afghan civilians who bear no responsibility whatsoever for

the attacks on U.S. soil, and (2) the political imperative of ensuring that the U.S.

military response did not harm innocent civilians and thereby jeopardize the moral

high ground that the United States has been able to maintain as the victim of terrorism that targeted civilians in New York and Washington. We raised these points

in a letter to President Bush and in subsequent meetings with administration and

congressional officials. I have attached a copy of the letter to this testimony.

RI applauds the administration’s decision to allocate $320 million to respond to

humanitarian needs in Afghanistan and for Afghan refugees in neighboring countries. We are especially glad that this pledge comes from the extraordinary $40 billion emergency fund approved by Congress and does not, therefore, reduce U.S.

funding for other humanitarian crises around the world. The amount allocated by

the Administration represents more than a fair share of the $584 million requested

by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in his appeal to the international community

for Afghan relief.

Nonetheless, given the magnitude of the needs in Afghanistan and the likelihood

that reconstruction assistance will be badly needed in the aftermath of the U.S.

military campaign, it is probably best to view the $320 million as an initial investment in a lengthy and costly response to the needs of the Afghan people for peace,

reconstruction, and development.

The most critical need at the moment is for significant food deliveries to Afghanistan to resume over land. As I have already noted, WFP had planned to provide

daily rations to 5.5 million people in the coming months. In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, WFP evacuated their expatriate staff and suspended food deliveries. Their extensive network of local staff, however, was able to

maintain feeding programs using existing stocks. Last week they delivered 5,000

metric tons of additional food to Afghanistan, but the weekly requirement is about

12,000 tons. The WFP briefly suspended food shipments after military strikes

began, but yesterday it announced that it was resuming overland food shipments

through Iran.

Refugees International recommends a strategy of flooding the country with food

by the most efficient and effective means available. Cross-border shipping by truck

from Pakistan, Iran, and the former Soviet republics in the north offers the best

possibility to transport the maximum amount of food to areas with concentrations

of vulnerable people. This effort needs to begin at once, as winter weather, especially in the north, will impair road transport.

Airdrops of food are inefficient and expensive, but they are better than nothing.

They should only be used as a last resort. Refugees International is concerned that

the airdrops of individual emergency food packets organized by the U.S. military at

the outset of the bombing campaign appear to be intended more to send a political

message to the Afghan people and to the Muslim world than to reach large numbers

of people at risk of starvation. The focus of the Administration should be to apply

as much of the $320 million as possible to getting food into Afghanistan by overland

routes through WFP and non-governmental organizations.

Food deliveries inside Afghanistan will save lives and could also help prevent a

refugee crisis on the borders of Pakistan, Iran, and other neighboring states. The

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that as many

as 1.5 million people could seek refuge in neighboring states as a result of anti-terrorist military actions and hunger. A refugee outpouring of this magnitude would

not only be a humanitarian crisis of massive proportions, it would potentially be politically destabilizing, especially in Pakistan and Iran, where resentment against Afghan refugees was already growing well before the events of September 11.

In this context, the preference is clearly to enable Afghans to remain in their

homes and on their farms rather than to have them embark on a long, difficult, and

dangerous journey to neighboring countries in search of food.

In the event that large numbers of Afghans decide to seek asylum in neighboring

countries, the issue of whether the borders will be open immediately arises. Both

Pakistan and Iran insist that their borders remain closed to new Afghan refugees.

Both countries prefer that the needs of the displaced be met through cross-border

operations to Afghans held in camps inside Afghanistan. Iran is a signatory to the

1951 Refugee Convention that obligates it to provide asylum to vulnerable people

45

fleeing persecution, violence, and hunger. The UNHCR and the international community must insist that neighboring countries open their borders to Afghan refugees, with the understanding that under the principle of ‘‘burden sharing’’ receiving

nations would receive appropriate financial assistance from the international community for their decision to honor their obligations.

Refugees International is concerned that UNHCR’s public comments on the issue

of opening the borders to refugees at the recent Forum on Afghanistan Refugees and

Displaced Persons (held in Geneva on October 5–6) appear designed to meet the

governments of Pakistan and Iran halfway rather than taking a principled position

on the right to asylum. Ruud Lubbers, the UN High Commissioner, has spoken of

the possibility of establishing camps inside Afghanistan and of opening borders not

for all refugees seeking protection but to assist and protect the vulnerable ‘‘temporarily.’’ While this approach is presumably designed to advance delicate negotiations

with the governments of Pakistan and Iran, the Afghan people depend on UN14CR

to support their right to asylum at this difficult moment. RI urges the administration to insist that the borders of neighboring countries be open to refugees. The U.S.

should also intervene with the High Commissioner to ensure that he is vigorously

supporting the right to asylum for Afghans.

The crisis in Afghanistan is complex. The U.S. response involves military, economic, diplomatic, and humanitarian elements. A lesson that clearly emerges from

similar crises over the past decade is the importance of designating a Cabinet-level

official specifically and solely to take charge of humanitarian issues. While all senior

members of the U.S. team should be sensitive to humanitarian concerns, it is important to have one individual at the table who is responsible for the complex interplay

among military, political, and humanitarian aspects of the operation. Recently,

President Bush appointed coordinators for homeland defense and counter-terrorism

programs.

The over-riding brief for such a humanitarian affairs coordinator should be to ensure that the interests of the Afghan civilians and refugees are protected. The humanitarian affairs coordinator can be either a military or civilian officer. This person could also be the senior contact point for the UN, other international organizations, and NGOs involved on the humanitarian front. What is essential is that the

coordinator be in the inner circle of those who are managing the U.S. part of the

decision-making process. To do less will court humanitarian errors that will affect

the lives of many and the overall credibility of the U.S. government.

In conclusion, let me summarize my three main points:

• The humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan predates the September 11th attack

against the United States and the U.S. military response to that attack.

• The international community, led by the U.S., has responded well and quickly

to the humanitarian needs of the Afghan people.

• Nevertheless, more needs to be done to meet the Afghan people’s needs for food,

shelter and medical supplies, and after the current crisis is over, the international community will face the challenge of helping to rebuild Afghanistan.

Refugees are a sign of instability. Frequently, refugees flee a country where the

government does not work or fails to protect its own people. The immediate challenge is to meet the humanitarian needs of millions of Afghans, both those inside

the country and those in refugee camps outside Afghanistan. After the current crisis, the U.S. and its allies will face a longer term task of helping Afghanistan to

become stable and prosperous.

[The letter referred to by Mr. Bacon follows:]

REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL,

Washington, DC,

September 18, 2001.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH,

The White House, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:

As you plan the military, diplomatic, and economic responses needed to destroy

the terrorist network that attacked the United States, it is important that you also

plan to meet the humanitarian needs of the people of Afghanistan, a country that

already is the site of the greatest crisis of hunger and displacement in the world.

Twenty-two years of war, three years of drought, and the difficulties caused by

the repressive Taliban regime have caused nearly 4 million Afghans to flee to Iran

and Pakistan. According to the United Nations, 5 million people still in the country

46

are in danger of starvation due to a three-year drought. Hoping to escape a U.S.

response to last week’s devastation, 100,000 Afghans have fled Kabul and other cities and the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar is now half-empty.

Many people in rural parts of the country are on famine rations: bitter wild roots

and grass mixed with wheat flour to make bread. Tens of thousands of people in

the cities, including war widows, the elderly, and orphans, are completely dependent

upon international aid for their survival. Only food aid—mostly U.S.-donated

wheat—stands between them and starvation.

Yet most UN and non-governmental relief agencies have pulled out of Afghanistan

following last week’s attack against the U.S. The World Food Program says it has

only enough food in the country for two weeks of distribution by local personnel. The

borders with Pakistan and Iran are mostly closed to the flow of people and goods.

The U.S. experience in the Gulf War suggests the importance of anticipating and

minimizing refugee flows and starvation. In the Gulf War, the U.S. was caught by

surprise when over 2 million Kurds fled, some to neighboring Turkey and Iran, to

escape Saddam Hussein, necessitating an urgent humanitarian response for which

the international community was largely unprepared.

Refugees International recommends that the administration prepare a humanitarian impact analysis for military operations and contingency plans to deal with

humanitarian challenges. Military operations should be planned to minimize the impact on people already tottering on the edge of famine and to repair humanitarian

damage as soon as possible.

Considering that the war is with terrorists and their supporters, not with the Afghan people, the U.S. also needs to find a way to resume relief operations and food

aid to the Afghan people. The first step should be immediate consultations with the

UN Secretary General to find ways to enable relief workers to return safely to the

country and resume operations. The UN must anticipate huge refugee and humanitarian problems and, as it did in Macedonia this summer, get the people and the

resources into the region to deal with them.

The most appalling and universally condemned aspect of last week’s attack

against the U.S. was the targeting of innocent civilians. The U.S. cannot afford to

be accused of doing the same in its response. The U.S. requires the support of moderate Muslims around the world and this necessitates maintaining the moral high

ground. A humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan, if attributed to U.S. military operations, could leave the American people even more vulnerable to terrorism in the

future. The United States wants to win the war against terrorism—not sow the

seeds of future problems.

Sincerely,

KENNETH H. BACON,

President.

Senator BOXER. Thank you.

Senator Wellstone, it is my pleasure to introduce Eleanor Smeal,

the president of the Feminist Majority. We already heard of the

plight of these people. We are looking at everything coming together: drought, famine, no human rights, a place where terrorism

breeds, all of this coming down, and particularly a place where

women just have absolutely no rights whatsoever, and all this was

brought to my attention so long ago by Ellie Smeal and the grassroots women in California who work with her.

So it is certainly an honor for me to introduce her, and, Senator

Wellstone, thank you for that honor.

STATEMENT OF MS. ELEANOR SMEAL, PRESIDENT, FEMINIST

MAJORITY, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA

Ms. SMEAL. Thank you, Senator Boxer, and thank you for being

with us for so many years, supporting our efforts, and also thank

your able staff. Sean Moore has been right there, too. As you know,

our campaign to stop gender apartheid has been working not only

at the national but at the grassroots level, very strong in California, but really in 49 of the 50 states.

I would also like to thank Senator Wellstone for your efforts

here.

47

We have been involved in this campaign to stop gender apartheid

in Afghanistan since 1997. We got involved because of the horrific

treatment of women, but when we got involved, we also learned

about the terrible humanitarian crisis, so we immediately tried to

get more humanitarian aid to save lives.

In addition, we looked at the situation and realized that there

must be not only nonrecognition of the Taliban by the United

States and the United Nations, but also that there had to be more

pressure on both Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE to withdraw their support for the Taliban. As we all know, the United

States came out against recognition, and, Senator Boxer, you

played a major part in that. And we also came against the construction of a major oil pipeline there, and UNOCAL withdrew,

again because the California women played a major role in that.

We would like to point out that we came out early to have the

Taliban designated as a terrorist organization, and I want to note

that to this date, they are still not designated as a terrorist organization, and we think that should still happen.

Right now, our grassroots effort has the endorsement of over 200

women’s rights and human rights organizations that are co-sponsoring it, and Mavis Leno is our chair, our national chair.

Hundreds of thousands of people now have written letters and

signed petitions and sent e-mails to the Clinton administration and

to the Bush administration, urging help for the Afghan women and

for humanitarian aid. I point this out, because I want to stress the

huge support for this among the American people. The American

people do see a different between the Taliban and the humanitarian situation, and the Afghan people and especially the women

there, and this constituency is deep. It is profound, and it has responded even more now in wake of the tragic events of September

11.

We have now seen an outpouring. People are sending more help.

They are trying to encourage that there be more aid, and indeed,

some 800 different groups at the local level are trying themselves

to raise money to help local Afghan groups and in the refugee areas

to do clinics and schools. I have heard today—there has been so

many different numbers of the millions of people in trouble.

The one thing I would like to emphasize is that prior to September 11, millions have fled, and hundreds of thousands in this

year alone. The numbers are so big, they are staggering.

The refugee population is the single biggest in the world, and so

I just want us to try to get our arms around the numbers, even

though they might differ some, because the need is so great.

Our staff has visited the refugee areas, and they are horrific.

There is little food. Families have only a plastic sheeting for shelter, and there is virtually no sanitation.

This has been going on. This is a near holocaust situation, and

as far as health care, please, it is so minimal that one woman every

30 minutes, somebody calculated, is dying from childbirth, and one

in four children are dying before the age of 5, and the infant mortality rate is soaring. This is staggering, and that is why we must

think big. Yes. America has—the United States has led in humanitarian aid, but I must stress, it has been too little, and we believe

that the United Nations’ appeals have been very modest. The reaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:27 May 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 75946 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
48

son they have been so modest is because until September 11, all

we could hear about is donor nation exhaustion, because this war

had been going on so long.

Consequently, the appeals have been modest, and even though

the latest appeal, which is for 584 million—and I am thrilled that

we now have 730 million—it too was modest, and let us point out

why.

First, the United Nations only counts as refugees those who live

in the refugee camps, and most people do not live——

Senator WELLSTONE. Excuse me, Ms. Smeal. Please go on a little

longer.

Ms. SMEAL. Also the appeal only had 3 percent in it for health

care and 1 percent in it for education, and we all know the importance of the education. We are heartened by Bush’s response, but

we agree with Senator Biden that we should be thinking in terms

of billions of dollars, and we must be thinking in terms of really

reconstructing this country, and at the center of it must be women.

We are—we were the majority of the health care workers. We are

70 percent of the teachers. We must be at the center of it.

And right now, we are urging that funds be set aside and go directly to women-led, Afghan women-led NGOs. Right now, we give

money to the big international ones, but it is these little NGOs—

and they are only little, because no one gives them aid. They have

the capability; they have the talent.

They have got to be part of the reconstruction effort, so we must

support them. And they are there; they can do more.

They are running the clinics and schools, and we hope that we

will, in fact, support them directly in the reconstruction.

I hear so much about what is going to happen afterwards.

We plead. We think in terms of a constitutional democracy.

They had one. They had one in 1964. By the way, it has an equal

rights amendment for women in there. They had universal suffrage. Women were in the parliament. We were judges.

There was a separate and independent judiciary, so we don’t

have to start from scratch. You can build and build on a very capable indigenous Afghan women.

We have had the privilege of working with many Afghan women.

Yes, it is true, there is a large illiterate population, but it is also

true there are many educated women.

They have been doctors; they have been engineers, lawyers.

These are people who could and must be at the decision-making

table. And so we are hoping that when we think, we think in terms

of what we did after World War II, that we reconstruct, we help

to build a democracy, that we make sure that people are at the

table, and that, in fact, their rights are fully restored, and that, indeed, that it is not treated as a side issue.

I believe in this issue. In many ways, women were the canaries

in the mine. If we had seen, if the world had responded faster,

maybe, maybe more could have been averted, but in this time, they

cannot be ignored. They must be treated as a major part of the solution of this problem.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Eleanor Smeal follows:]

49

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. ELEANOR SMEAL

Since early 1997, the Feminist Majority and its sister organization the Feminist

Majority Foundation have led the Campaign to Stop Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan in order to raise public awareness about the treatment of women and girls in

Afghanistan and to urge the U.S. and the U.N. to do all in their power to restore

the rights of women and to address this humanitarian disaster. Throughout this

campaign, we urged non-recognition of the Taliban by the United States and the

United Nations, designation of the Taliban as an international terrorist organization, pressure on Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE to withdraw their support

for the Taliban, and that the construction of an oil and gas pipeline through Afghanistan that would have supplied millions of dollars in profits to the Taliban be

stopped. As you know, the U.S.and the U.N. did come out against the recognition

of the Taliban in an event at the White House on March 11, 1998 in commemoration

of International Women’s Day (March 8) and UNOCAL did stop the pipeline. But

to this date, the U.S. has still not designated the Taliban as an international terrorist organization. To date, over 200 women’s rights and human rights organizations are co-sponsoring our national campaign chaired by Mavis Leno.

Hundreds of thousands of individuals have written letters, signed petitions, and

sent e-mails to urge both the Clinton Administration and now the Bush Administration to do everything in their power to restore the human rights of Afghan women.

We have formed over 800 Action Teams to Help Afghan Women nationwide. These

teams, which include girl scout troops, community organizations, classrooms, and

groups of family, friends, and co-workers, are organizing petition drives and raising

funds to support schools and clinics run by Afghan women in Pakistan for refugees.

In both 1999 and 2000, officials at the U.S. State Department told us that we had

successfully mobilized a U.S. constituency on a foreign policy issue and that they

had received more mail from Americans on restoring women’s rights in Afghanistan

than on any other foreign policy issue.

In the wake of the tragic events of September 11, we have seen an overwhelming

outpouring of public support for Afghan women. People have responded to our message that humanitarian aid must be dramatically increased and that Afghan women

must be freed. With the nation’s focus on Afghanistan and increased visibility about

the plight of Afghan women, Americans want to know how to help. In the past few

weeks, tens of thousands of individuals have used our website to send messages to

the Administration and to Congress urging that Afghan women not be forgotten. Action teams are now forming at the incredible pace of more than 100 per week.

People are outraged about the Taliban’s brutal treatment of women. Women were

the first victims of the Taliban, and the public is becoming increasingly aware of

this fact. The public has now seen broadcast on television again and again film footage of women being beaten and executed for violating the Taliban’s decrees banning

women from employment, from attending school, from leaving their homes without

a close male relative and without wearing the head-to-toe burqa shroud.

Before September 11, the tragic conditions of Afghanistan—including the worst

drought in 30 years, 23 years of military fighting, and the barbaric treatment of

women and minorities by the Taliban—had resulted in massive numbers of Afghan

refugees. Some 3.5 million Afghan refugees had fled to Pakistan alone, 2 million in

the refugee camps and 1.5 million in the cities and villages. Another 1.5 million refugees are in Iran, and hundreds of thousands more in other neighboring countries.

Since September 11, the plight of refugees and displaced persons has become even

more perilous and the number of people attempting to flee Afghanistan and its cities

has increased dramatically.

Now the United Nations expects that the total number of Afghans in need of humanitarian assistance soon will be at least 7.5 million. This estimate includes 1.2

million who are internally displaced within Afghanistan and have left their homes

to find food and shelter; another 4.2 million who are internally stranded and without adequate resources to survive; and tens of thousands who have escaped to

neighboring countries since September 11 despite border closings. The estimate of

vulnerable people also includes some 2 million vulnerable refugees among the 3.5

million Afghan refugees in Pakistan, 1.5 million in Iran, and at least 200,000 in

other neighboring countries. Seventy-five percent of refugees are women and children.

Our staff has visited the refugee areas in Pakistan. The conditions in which these

refugees fight for survival are horrific with little food, with many families having

no more than plastic sheets for shelter, and with virtually no sanitation. These conditions have resulted in widespread disease, death, and regional instability. According to some estimates, one woman is dying in childbirth every 30 minutes and one

in four children are dying before 5 years of age.

50

The world response to this widespread suffering and near holocaust situation has

been insufficient. Prior to September 11, the USA was leading all nations in providing humanitarian aid to Afghanistan by contributing some $70 million in 1999

and $113 million in 2000. In 2001, the U.S. had been scheduled to provide $125 million in aid.

We applaud the work of the United Nations’ agencies, especially the World Food

Program, in Afghanistan. But for years they have been forced to underestimate the

needs of Afghan refugees and Afghan people because of the lack of donor nation response. Prior to September 11, we heard constantly of donor nation exhaustion. Consequently, the United Nations appeals have tended to be very modest. Although the

most recent consolidated appeal is considerably more than in the past, we believe

it still underestimates the real needs in several important respects:

• First, the United Nations only counts as refugees and provides assistance to

those who live in the refugee camps. However, almost half of the refugees in

Pakistan approximately 1.5 million—live outside of camps. These desperate refugees, who live in cities and villages in Pakistan, mostly belong to the Hazara,

Uzbek, and Tajik ethnic minorities who have been most persecuted by the

Taliban and who fear the Pashtun dominated camps in which the Taliban has

had influence. These urban refugees receive virtually no assistance from the

UN, and are in desperate need of food, health care, and education programs.

• Second, the current appeal provides very little for health or education. Only 3

percent of the United Nations appeal is devoted to health. Nor are sufficient

funds for education inside and outside of the camps being requested in the appeal. Education is less than 1 percent of the United Nations appeal. Education

is not a luxury, but a core component of ending terrorism and promoting democracy. We cannot lose a generation of Afghan girls and boys. Education for refugee girls is necessary to make up for the denial of education under the

Taliban, and to make possible the participation of young women in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. The availability of education for boys is necessary to

counteract the madrassas (so-called religious schools) which are the source of

foot soldiers for the Taliban.

• Finally, the LTN Appeal provides only 6 months of bare subsistence rations. Of

the food and support needs of $188 million, the commodities included are only

wheat, vegetable oil, pulses (lentils), salt, wheat/soy blend, sugar, and high energy biscuits.

We appreciate that on October 401 President Bush announced a commitment of

an additional $295 million in U.S. emergency humanitarian aid to suffering people

in Afghanistan and to Afghan refugees. This emergency humanitarian package is

a critically needed escalation of aid that will help save the lives of millions of innocent Afghans, especially women and children, many of whom are near starvation in

pre-famine condition, without shelter, and without health care.

The United States’ leadership in meeting a significant portion of the United Nations $584 million appeal for emergency assistance is very heartening. However, we

believe that the needs of Afghan refugees are even more massive and that our government must do even more to meet them.

We commend and support the call of the Chairman of this Committee, Senator

Joseph Biden, for a multi-billion dollar infusion of humanitarian relief for Afghanistan and for the surrounding region to address refugees’ humanitarian needs and

to sustain long-term reconstruction efforts. His leadership and vision in this call are

timely and extremely needed.

Our understanding is that of the funds that have recently been announced by

President Bush, a yet to be determined portion will go towards the UN appeal for

UN sponsored humanitarian aid and another portion of funds will go to programs

carried out by other international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

No funds, however, are scheduled to be granted directly to women-led NGOs. I

would like to stress the importance of the U.S. providing direct funding to Afghan

women led NGOs. Humanitarian funds from the United States and the United Nations also should go directly to Afghan women-led humanitarian organizations that

are delivering desperately needed health, education, and relief services. These

groups are in a position to help large numbers of Afghan women and girls living

as refugees in Pakistan, and where possible in Afghanistan, if only they had more

resources to survive and to contend with the increasing need. The future of a peaceful, stable, and democratic Afghanistan depends in large measure upon the strength

of these Afghan women’s organizations and the women and girls to whom they are

providing assistance and educational opportunities.

51

The removal of the Taliban together with the restoration of the rights of women,

broad-based, multi-ethnic constitutional democracy, and economic development are

essential in the fights to end terrorism and to free women. In any rebuilding of Afghanistan, women must be in leadership roles. We have been urging the State Department that Afghan women not be forgotten in the U.S. strategies to combat terrorism. and in their planning for a post-bin Laden and post-Taliban Afghanistan.

In order to gain regional stability and build democracy instead of dictatorship, the

United States must make a commitment to provide not only significant emergency

humanitarian assistance but also long-range assistance to help rebuild the economy

and infrastructure of Afghanistan. To fight the Soviet Union, we gave billions to Afghanistan in the form of arms and training for the mujahedeen that gave rise to

the Taliban. To combat terrorism, we must help rebuild Afghanistan and restore it

to a civil society dependent on neither opium nor heroin trafficking and smuggling.

We realized after World War 11 that the only way to break the back of fascism was

to re-establish constitutional democracies in Germany and Italy, to establish one in

Japan, to provide rights to women, and to provide economic development assistance.

In the reconstruction, women will be essential. If a Loya Jirga or any other assembly takes place, there must be representation of women from each of the different parties and ethnic groups and women’s groups must be included so that

women leaders will be decision makers for Afghanistan’s future. Afghan women

even in these most difficult times have been running clandestine schools, health

clinics in both Afghanistan and in refugee areas, and are key in relief programs and

income generation projects in the refugee areas. Despite untold hardships, Afghan

women have been leading NGOs in the refugee areas. These women must be involved in charting the future of the country.

During the past five years, the Feminist Majority has had the privilege of working

with many Afghan women leaders. We have been impressed and inspired by their

courage, knowledge, and ability to provide services, work and survive in the most

repressive regime against women in the history of the world. They remind us that

women were leaders, members of parliament, educators, civil servants, doctors, and

technicians before the Taliban. Indeed, with so many men killed in 23 years of war,

women are thought to be 60-70 percent of the adult population and have managed

to keep going the few remnants of Afghan civil society that exist today. They have

risked their own lives and some have lost their lives to run home schools and health

clinics despite Taliban edicts. These women leaders must be a part of the peace

process and the rebuilding of their country. They must be at the table as decision

makers.

We cannot be fooled by those who would use culture and religion as an excuse

for the marginalization or exclusion of women in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

The Taliban’s decrees are foreign to Islam, to the culture, and to the people of Afghanistan. Since the 1950s, women and girls in Kabul and in many other parts of

the country attended schools as did boys. Before the Taliban gained dominance in

Afghanistan, women were a crucial part of the workforce. Afghan women have a history of public service leadership and were believed to be 30% of its civil bureaucracy.

For example, in Kabul, before the Taliban took over, women were: over 70 percent

of teachers were women; 40 percent of doctors and the vast majority of health care

workers were women; and over half the university students.

If civil society is to be rebuilt in Afghanistan and the rogue state that has been

sustained by drug trafficking is to be brought to an end, all citizens—especially

those in the health care and education fields—must be utilized. The employment of

these workers—who are mostly women—is essential to the rebuilding of the country’s social infrastructure and civilization itself. The restoration of the rights of

women is crucial both for the sake of human rights and to make possible the return

to civil society. The United States would be repeating a tragic mistake if it again

turns to another set of extremists as it did to repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and chooses a dictatorship as the most expedient strategy to replace the

Taliban. The restoration of a broad-based democracy, representative of both ethnic

minorities and women, with women at the table, is necessary to break the back of

a terrorist and a war-torn existence. We urge you to think long-term—in this case,

the right thing to do is also the best thing for global security, human rights, and

economic development.

In a discussion at the State Department, we were asked would the U.S. people

support a massive reconstruction of Afghanistan or would the U.S. people rather

support simply sustaining a tolerable subsistence economy in Afghanistan. We often

hear today (a ́ la Tom Brokaw) the World War II generation of Americans referred

to as the ‘‘greatest generation.’’ We are proud we fought fascism, rebuilt the economies of Germany and Japan, and helped to establish democracies in these nations

with women’s rights. We helped to establish in post WWII, a United Nations and

52

under the leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt, the U.N. Universal Declaration of

Human Rights. If this declaration is to mean anything, we must help to restore

women’s rights in this most abused nation—Afghanistan—and we must restore its

democracy. Afghanistan first adopted a constitutional democracy in 1964 that included full universal suffrage, an equal rights amendment for women that even included equal pay provisions, and a separation of powers with an independent judiciary. Women were members of the Parliament and were judges.

We know today that literally millions of Americans are appalled at the Taliban’s

treatment of its own people, especially its women. We know from our work at the

grass roots level in 49 states of the union that Americans want women’s rights restored in Afghanistan and for this society to return to normalcy. We as Americans

do feel a moral obligation to Afghanistan because it was the last stop in the Cold

War. We can be the ‘‘greatest generation’’ today. We must meet the challenge and

as our parents, not settle for expediency but strive for the dream of democracy and

human rights for all—and in Eleanor Roosevelt’s memory, we cannot forget the

women.

Senator WELLSTONE. Thank you so much. What I am going to do

is just lay out some of my concerns all at once, and then kind of

have you respond, and that is the most efficient use of time.

There are people—there is the whole issue of conditions right

now in the refugee camps which are deplorable, and also I have

concerns about the security right now of these camps, and I want

to talk about that with each one of you. Then are the people left

behind, many of whom by definition are elderly, infirm, more vulnerable, left behind to eat meals of locusts and animal fodder by

reports?

Here are some of the questions I have. Number one, it seems to

me that the convoys—and, Ken, you were talking about this, the

UNWFP—the convoys, the air drops, it is 1 percent, less than 1

percent, and not all that efficient, and the earlier testimony was we

can’t rely on that anyway. I think there is agreement. You have got

to get this in by the convoys; you have got to get the food in this

way. So one question I have is: I would think that is going to be

a priority for our government, to somehow do what we need to do

to make sure those convoys can continue to be coming in with food.

That is a question I have for you, whether you would agree.

There is the question of—there have been some reports, as long

as we are talking about NGOs and the United Nations, there have

been some reports of UN and NGO offices being burned in Pakistan by anti-American protesters, and so I want you to speak to

whether or not you think there is sufficient steps being taken to

protect humanitarian workers, including women, who are associated with these international and local organizations in Pakistan.

And then finally—I guess those are the first order questions. At

some point in time, I want to get your perspective. Your organization has been in Afghanistan a long time, and the Taliban are

widely despised for all the right reasons.

I also understand that there are a significant number of Afghans

that are alarmed or express alarm at the prospect of the Northern

Alliance, that they might return to power, given their record of serious abuses, including rape and massacres and indiscriminate

bombing that were committed while they were in power, and I

want to ask you whether or not that sentiment—to what extent

that sentiment is widespread or not. That is a flow of questions,

starting with Mr. Bacon.

Mr. BACON. Sure. On convoys, you are absolutely right.

53

They have to continue. Andrew Natsios told of a bunch of NGOs

yesterday that the U.S. is totally committed to making sure the

convoys flow as freely as possible. The key here is many entry

points, not just through Pakistan or through Iran, but also through

Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. There are efforts underway to open the so-called Friendship Ridge from Uzbekistan

into Afghanistan, and that would be helpful.

Convoys are obviously subject to attack, and one of the issues

that our government and the UN is looking at is how to secure the

convoys. I don’t think anybody has good answers.

Right now there is another question. Once you get the food into

Afghanistan, how do you make sure that it is not taken by the

wrong people, taken by the military or the Taliban forces.

One way to do that would be so-called web feeding, that is, a sort

of hot, prepared meals rather than the giveaway packets of food.

Usually people with AK–47s don’t like to stand in line to get handout dinners in refugee camps.

But these are details that have to be worked out to make sure

that, one, the food gets in, and, two, it goes to the right people. Obviously security is a problem for humanitarian workers, and that

is something that the UN has never been particularly good at. It

is something that the UN and NGOs are paying more attention to,

but ultimately we have to rely, as much as possible, on the governments of Pakistan and Iran to provide the security for the camps

and for the humanitarian workers. The problem has been greater

in Pakistan than Iran.

Finally, there is an urgent problem that demands attention, and

that is while Pakistan is preventing refugees from coming in right

now, there are signs that they are preparing to relent. They are

preparing some camps in the northwest frontier province, which is

generally a very hostile area, and camps there could be very dangerous, both for refugees and for humanitarian workers. So it is

imperative that the U.S., the UN, and other nations work very

hard to try to get Pakistan to relocate whatever new camps it sets

up.

This is a difficult issue, but it is one that could be crucially important to the protection of refugees and the people who help them.

Ms. SMEAL. On the convoys, one thing I want to point out is that

most of the non-Afghan humanitarian workers have left Afghanistan, so again it is one of the reasons I think we must invest in

Afghan workers, because they are the only ones that are there, and

even they are discombobulated under these conditions. Obviously

we have to provide security, but, in fact, we have superior forces

and can do that.

But one of the things that I want to emphasize is even the people

in the refugee areas outside of Afghanistan do not have enough

food, and so that also is a serious problem. And, by the way, the

reason so many of the refugees are not in the camps is because

they don’t think they are secure. Some of the camps, the Taliban

have been holding sway over, and so many of the ethnic groups

who they have been persecuting, such as the Hazarahs and Tajiks

are afraid to go into the camps, and not only that. So are women,

because, indeed, they have been harassing and doing things to

women in some of these areas.

54

And so basically you have a lot of people who are afraid to be

in the camps. That is why we are so pleading with our government

and the United Nations to please count who are in the refugee

areas but simply are not in these camps that are very dangerous

for them, because there hasn’t been security in quite a long time.

And I want to just read, because there is so much been done

about this package, that is supposed to be 2,200 calories in this little yellow package. I want to read what we are giving. We are giving wheat—and this is now from the World Food Program, which

I totally respect. Catherine Brutini has done one magnificent job.

But this is what we give. It is wheat, vegetable oil, pulses which

is lentils—I assume dry—salt, wheat soy blend, sugar, and high energy biscuits.

So what does that really boil down to? It is principally bread and

water, and the water isn’t clean. I don’t want us to feel so generous

and so good here. When I realize what these folks are surviving on,

no wonder the infant mortality is so high. No wonder children

aren’t surviving. Couldn’t we put some dry milk in it? Couldn’t we

get a little ingenious and get some more food in this? You can’t— I don’t understand how these people survived this long, but this is

literally from the food health program, and it is really scary. And

there is no sanitation, remember, in these areas.

And so no wonder, you know, there is unrest in Pakistan. That

is where the bulk of the people are. No wonder there is unrest, because there has not been enough aid, so we have got to do far better, and we have got to get with a much bigger program.

Mr. DE TORRENTE. I think the issue of the convoys has already

been answered clearly. Going through the established aid operations that are already on the ground and have done the assessments, that have targeted the people, is the way to go, and that

is what we think should happen, a big effort of assistance going

through these already-established channels and people who are on

the ground, and who can target the beneficiaries in a good way.

On security of NGOs, I think really there are different approaches to security. One, you could put them in like two different

camps. One is to say that aid workers should be physically protected, meaning higher armed guards or the like.

The other is to say that the security relies on the consent of the

people and the authorities of the areas in which you try to provide

relief.

And actually that is the consent, is the consensual approach is

the one that organizations like ourselves who are unarmed and

who go and work in very difficult environments throughout the

world, not only in Afghanistan. It is the one we rely on, and that

is why I stressed before the fact of being perceived as neutral, as

independent, as only concerned with humanitarian issues is so important for the security of staff. And this is why this point about

separating these agendas is so critical.

So I think it will go some way. It won’t go all the way.

We know there is anti-western sentiment, even before the U.S.

military was dropping food, air drops. I am not saying it is only due

to that. I think there is anti-western sentiment generally, which is

going to be difficult to combat, but it does contribute to this problem.

55

For security of refugees, I want to come back to that, for security

of refugees in Pakistan especially. As I said before, the camps, the

sites for new influx that have been determined so far are really in

areas where security of refugees, were they able to cross, cannot be

guaranteed.

These are areas—these are called tribal areas of Pakistan. There

is none under direct control of the Pakistan government. There are

an array of different forces there.

This is an ethnically homogeneous area. If you are from a different ethnic minority—we heard about Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazarahs.

If you go to these areas, it will be very difficult for you to be protected and to be safe. I think this is important. This is why the

people have to be brought further inland, allowed to come further

inland in the areas where they can be safer and where international staff can have access to them for assistance.

Your third question had to do with the situation in the Northern

Alliance areas. I was there very recently, in August, and I would

say that conditions are better, but not significantly better, especially for women. Women—the key difference—there are two key

differences. One is that girls are allowed to go to school and women

can be teachers, can teach children. The other one is that the Islamic rules are not enforced by an institution such as the religious

police, such as in the Taliban areas. Therefore, it is more diffuse.

However, the issue of if you are a woman and you go to a health

center, you need to be accompanied by your husband or male relative. Just like in the Taliban areas, women have to wear burqas

in the Northern Alliance areas. Women in many of these areas are

not allowed to go to the market, for instance.

So the type of situation we do see has similarities with the situation in the Taliban areas. I think we should recognize that, and so

the health problems of women that we heard about before are quite

similar in these different parts of the country.

In terms of the general condition, the other point I wanted to

make about that is that throughout the country, the war has had

a big impact. There has been militarization of the society. The people who have risen to power are military actors, and they control

the economic and the political arena.

The social concerns, health issues, and so on are really at the

bottom of the list. In the Northern Alliance areas, there are very

few health centers, clinics, et cetera. There are very few Afghan

medical staff, and it is really a link through international organizations such as ourselves that these structures, these very few remaining structures, can be maintained.

So this is just to say that we should not see it in terms of two

completely different areas of the country. There are similarities between them, although I do stress that the situation in the Taliban

areas on a number of counts is significantly worse.

Senator WELLSTONE. Senator Boxer?

Senator BOXER. Mr. de Torrente, I think you have proven the

point Ellie Smeal made, that even where the women can go to

school and teach, it is still oppressive with the Northern Alliance,

and when she says that the women should be the central part of

the rebuild, I think this is absolutely what has to happen, and I

56

am going to dedicate myself to being that voice, because that is the

voice of reason.

That is the voice of moderation, the women’s voices, so that is

something we really must keep in mind, so thank you for talking

about what it is like for women to live even with the Northern Alliance, which is supposed to be the most liberal compared to the

Taliban. We have got human rights violations all over the place

from them toward the women, and so I think this is key.

Ms. Smeal, do you want to add to that?

Ms. SMEAL. Yes. Remember, the Northern Alliance and the

Taliban come from the mujaheddin, which were extremists and religious extremists, but also who were involved in drug trafficking,

and basically we really shouldn’t replace one set of extremists with

another. Although there is no question the Northern Alliance is

better, it is a matter of degree here, and that is why I keep urging

so much that constitutional democracy and that we return to civil

society where we reach out to not just military commanders who

came out of this whole, defeating the Soviets, but to people who

were the part of the Afghan society prior to all of this.

Now, one other major thing—and it is hard to keep in our brain,

but because of all of this war, the majority of adults are women.

Some people estimate in some areas we are 60 and 70 percent of

the adults, and so because they are even—the Taliban is stepping

down to 12-year-olds in their army. There is no way to rebuild

without us, and we have to be at the center, and I really am grateful for your statement that you will make this a center focus, because we need it, because we keep dropping out.

And somehow I think people think, well, there is only two

choices, or we have got to go to one of these military commanders,

and others that are mentioned, too, have horrific human rights violations in their background.

Senator BOXER. We just have to see beneath the veil to get a

sense of what it is like there. I keep coming back to this comment

made by the USAID leader here on the part of the administration,

and that is that people should stay in their homes. From what you

know about what is planned—and I would ask this to all of you

who care so deeply and who know this so well: Do you think that

is a good message?

Let’s say we had an opportunity to talk to those folks today who

are frightened and afraid that they are running out of options.

Would you tell them to stay in their homes?

Ms. SMEAL. Well, you know, this is not inconsistent with what

the State Department has been saying now for the five years I

have been involved. In fact, there was a period very recently where

we were putting more effort into having refugees go back than

helping them where they were, even though it was clear it was unsafe where they were going back to.

I think in some ways it is a message that is even too late. We

were looking at the numbers while he was talking, the number of

the people estimated already displaced from their homes. There are

people—they estimate that 4.2 million are internally stranded. We

asked what that definition meant, and that is a new definition in

the UN which means they are no longer in their homes, but they

are in their village or city areas.

57

Okay. They have already moved, but they are not really, so that

is internally stranded. Another 1.2 million are internally displaced

within Afghanistan, and they are called internally displaced, not

stranded. That means they have left their village or city, and they

are looking for food and shelter elsewhere, so that is about 5.4 million, according to the UN, on the move within the country already.

And then I went through the numbers that are already in the

refugee areas in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is 3.5 million, we estimate, and 2 million in the refugee camps, 11.5 million in the cities and towns, another million and a half in Iran, and hundreds

of thousands in Tajikistan and Ubekistan. There is a lot of people

on the move here, and it is sort of like trying to close the door

after—what is it?—the barn door after the horse has left.

The other thing that we keep not mentioning, but I think—and

I don’t know if even my staff will agree, but, you know, we have

admitted very few refugees into the United States or other countries. In 1996 and 1997, the United States accepted no refugees

from Afghanistan. In 1998, it was, I think, 88; in 1999, it was 300-

some. Last year, it was—I think it was—I am doing this off the top

of my head—about 1,700. We can get you the numbers. Why did

we close the doors, and it wasn’t just us? It is all the world.

Remember, that ship off of Australia of several hundred Afghan

refugees that no one would accept? I think there has to be some

larger acceptance of refugees, especially young people who could go

to college or go to graduate school, because they could go home and

rebuild their countries. we have a scholarship program, trying to

get young women out. We can’t afford to lose a whole generation

of women and still think we are going to rebuild this society, or a

whole generation of people.

So I think part of this has to be thinking in terms of how we can

train and educate while we are also reconstructing, and it certainly

should be opening our doors, especially to those who are being persecuted because they spoke up. A woman who speaks out can be

targeted for all kinds of abuse. we should be having more political

refugees in this intense situation.

Senator BOXER. I know time is running out. I just want to make

a comment, and then ask both of you to get back to that question.

Ken and Nicolas, the question about whether you could tell people

who haven’t left their homes to stay in their homes, so think about

that.

But I just wanted to underscore what you said. More than 80

percent of the world’s refugees and displaced persons are women

and children. So whatever happened to the gallant side of our spirits? Women and children, help them. And I know from what I can

tell, there is not that many special programs to address the particular needs, and when you say—and it is worth repeating—Senator Wellstone, 26 percent of the children in Afghanistan die before

the age of 5, 26 percent, and you just—on a day when we had great

news about our life expectancy and our infant mortality going in

the right direction, we have got to just do something about it.

Senator Wellstone and I were just talking that we really want

to keep our team together here, to take a lot of what you have already told us, and there is a tremendous sense of urgency. And if

I could be critical only a tiny bit—and it is not even critical, beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:27 May 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 75946 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
58

cause this thing happened to us so fast that we got thrown into everything—it is whether it is air safety, if you will, or whether it

is this abroad, we have to even go faster. We have to go faster.

How many weeks is it, Nicolas, until the winter, the snows come?

Mr. DE TORRENTE. Well, it depends where. Certain areas, certain

passes are already starting to get snow, and by mid-October some

passes will not be passable any longer.

Senator BOXER. We’re practically at mid-October, so we have a

humanitarian crisis that needs an urgent response, and we have to

think big about it, and I think that is really our message we have

gotten from all the panelists.

If you two can answer that question about, do you stay home if

you haven’t left, and then I will stop and turn it back to Senator

Wellstone.

Mr. BACON. Refugees International has been urging for years

that the best way to deal with the problem in Afghanistan is to get

food to the villages so people can stay there. People are reluctant

to leave their homes. They don’t want to leave their homes and

their families, but they will leave if they are not fed obviously.

The conditions in the refugee camps in Harak, for instance, in

Afghanistan are horrific, and we feel everybody would be better off

for many of the reasons that Mr. Natsios said earlier, if we could

get food to them in their villages.

The problem is it is very difficult to do. There is very little transportation infrastructure. We are talking about a country as large

as Texas. The topography is challenging, to say the least, so maybe

Nicolas can say more about this, but we have long advocated this

is the best thing to do.

We support the administration’s desire to do that. we question

whether it is possible.

Mr. DE TORRENTE. I think people have to have options.

They have two basic needs: security and sustenance, and being

able to survive. And, therefore, clearly from a health perspective,

if people stay in their homes, it is better, and we know the consequences of moving and being in this displaced persons camps.

These are densely populated areas. It is difficult to control in terms

of epidemic and so on, so it is clearly—it is better from a health

perspective if people stay in their homes.

However, people move also because of a fear of violence, persecution, and fear, and we have seen—we did a survey in one of our

refugee programs we are running in Mashad in Iran.

The date is a bit old, but it gives you an indication. This was in

January of this year. We are asking people coming to our clinic and

doing a questionnaire, and there we found that 70 percent of them

had fled because of violence and fear, and either that the war was

coming to them. This is the civil war. They had pockets throughout

the country. There were a lot of local commanders that were opposing the Taliban in different areas.

It is not only the main front line, but a number of other areas,

and persecution. There has been targeting of distinct ethnic groups

such as the Hazarahs. Therefore, if it is a perfect world, you can

guarantee security to all people.

Then, of course, they should be told not to go, but I think you

cannot tell people to stay in their homes if there is still a threat

59

of violence that is hanging over their heads, and violence comes

from many different quarters.

Senator BOXER. I so appreciate that. That was my sense, that in

the perfect world, you are only dealing with a famine, which is

awful in and of itself, but if that is the only thing you are dealing

with, and you can have the flat land and the good weather and the

convoys, yes. But my sense is a little bit of unrealistic talk here

with an imagery of people staying in their homes and just waiting

for the truck to pull up, like the milk truck used to pull up. It just

is not right.

Ms. SMEAL. Plus the fact that the Taliban are persecuting women

as a class. They are walking around with these religious police

beating people. I mean, the whole atmosphere, plus they are now

conscripting young kids. If they don’t go with them, they shoot

them, and so you might leave for that reason alone.

Senator BOXER. To get away from them shooting your youngest

son.

Ms. SMEAL. By the way, I wanted to submit—I forgot my testimony formally, because it has a lot of stuff in it.

Senator WELLSTONE. Absolutely. That will be a part of the

record, and, Nicolas, we will finish with you and Ken.

Mr. DE TORRENTE. Not to conclude, but just to—just on the reasons why people leave as a result of drought, just to give you an

indication of how the process happened, I think it is important to

realize this has been ongoing for three years now, and people—it

has eroded their coping mechanisms over time. Three years ago,

people had assets. They had livestock. They were richer people.

There was sharing among them. They were coping and coping on

their own within their communities without having to rely on outside assistance in a lot of these remote areas and remote villages.

But over time, they have had to sell off assets. They have had

crops failing time after time, and this has put people to the brink,

and what we have seen in going to rural areas and doing surveys

is that all of a sudden, a village decides, We can’t stay here any

longer; it is just not feasible; no options left; let’s take the little we

have remaining and move. And that is what we have been seeing,

is people moving from remote areas in provinces of Herat and these

areas, and moving. That makes it when they move, it is really out

of desperation and really as a means of last resort.

Therefore, we should try to reach out to them if we can, before

they reach that point.

Senator WELLSTONE. Let me just agree with Senator Boxer that

we thank you. I would like to thank the reporter who has been

working so hard. It is really important to have this on the record,

and I think both of us—and I think I speak for others who are

here—it is hard for any of this to be symbolic. I mean, we would

be less than fully human if we just had another committee hearing,

another discussion. This is all just so compelling and so important

and so before us right now.

Thank you for being here. The committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

(61)

HUMANITARIAN CRISIS: IS ENOUGH AID

REACHING AFGHANISTAN?

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2001

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NEAR EASTERN AND

SOUTH ASIAN AFFAIRS AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND TERRORISM, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 3:10 p.m. in room

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Paul D. Wellstone

(chairman of the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian

Affairs) presiding.

Present: Senators Wellstone and Lugar.

Senator WELLSTONE. The Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs will come to

order. I am going to be joined by Senator Boxer. I want to apologize

to all. We had a briefing from the State Department and Defense

Department that all Senators attended from 2 to 3, and some Senators are still there, but I would like to apologize to everyone for

the inconvenience of having to wait an hour.

I want to again thank all of you for participating in today’s hearing, and again apologize for the delay. Angelina Jolie is not here

yet, but I had a chance to meet with her. She has been a UNHCR

goodwill Ambassador, and she has recently visited the Afghan refugee camps. We want to thank Ms. Jolie for her fine leadership.

She will be coming later on, and we will recognize her.

Events are moving extremely quickly in Afghanistan, with the

military success by the anti-Taliban forces in the northern half of

the country and with the winter closing rapidly, threatening the

lives and well-being of millions of Afghans afflicted by drought and

war.

The challenge the United States and its coalition partners now

face is to translate the recent military successes into humanitarian

action that delivers assistance to the Afghans quickly and effectively. The international community must continue to contribute

significant resources to address the humanitarian needs of the Afghans. There were some delays at our own agencies, specifically

with OMB, in releasing much-needed funds. That now is going fine.

There were some delays, and this was unacceptable.

We now need to ensure that these resources arrive on the ground

in a timely and efficient manner, and I believe that will happen.

With Northern Alliance control of the area across from Termez,

Uzbekistan excuses are running out for Uzbekistan not to open the

62

Friendship Bridge. My understanding is that may have happened

today, which would speed crucial supplies into the country.

Further, the security situation must improve. The withdrawal of

the Taliban—if I am not correct, and I thought that is what I

heard, but I guess I cannot even talk about a briefing, so you can

give me your latest assessment of the Friendship Bridge.

Further, the security situation must improve. The withdrawal of

the Taliban has not resulted in a secure environment necessary for

humanitarian efforts to move forward. There are deeply disturbing

reports that Northern Alliance fighters seized UNICEF employees

and trucks and that 89 tons of World Food Program supplies were

stolen over the weekend.

It is unclear whether the Northern Alliance has the capacity to

provide security and establish law and order. Consequently, the

United Nations must move quickly to deploy a multinational force

to establish security so that the humanitarian organizations can do

their jobs. We must also begin planning now for a long-term commitment to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

The people of Afghanistan have endured 23 years of war misery,

and the conflict has threatened international stability and placed

enormous burdens on their limited means. The United States must

not just talk the talk, but we must also walk the walk. We must

show Afghans that we are not going to give up on them this time

and turn our backs on them as we did before. We must show genuine solidarity and real generosity now.

For many of these innocent Afghans you can absolutely count on

the fact that there will be others that will be making all kinds of

offers to them in a very fluid environment, and I do not think it

is at all too late for us to announce a bold economic reconstruction

program, microenterprises program, microenterprises infrastructure, cash assistance, public health, you name it. I cannot emphasize strongly enough that our Government needs to, with the international community, move forward with this now.

It is time to reverse more than a decade of neglect. We must be

willing to make a multiyear, multinational, and multibillion effort

to rebuild Afghanistan. We must move quickly to put in place a

long-term economic reconstruction package for this embattled nation, to be administered through the United Nation or another multinational entity.

We need to target assistance to the north now, which would have

a huge symbolic importance and be a powerful incentive, I believe,

to a push to the leaders in the south to abandon the Taliban and

join the United States-led effort. We know that many of the

Pashtun chiefs, including supporters of the Taliban, are already on

the fence. If the Pashtuns are now going hungry, and if they were

to see significant assistance enter in neighboring provinces, the

seemingly intractable problem of forging a political consensus in

Afghanistan might become a whole lot easier to solve.

I believe our reconstruction effort must focus on rebuilding basic

infrastructure, repairing shattered bridges and roads, removing

land mines, reconstructing irrigation systems, and drilling wells.

Creation of secular schools will break the stranglehold of extremism and allow both boys and girls to make positive contributions

to the development of their society. We must also rebuild the shatVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:27 May 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 75946 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
63

tered health infrastructure by establishing base hospital and village clinics.

Again, I would point out that there is a huge vacuum. You have

got people without means, in desperate economic shape. Above and

beyond the importance of this humanitarian assistance, I believe

this economic package is an absolute must. The Afghans have been

through enough hell. They deserve to live in a society where they

can feed their children, live in safety, and participate fully in their

country’s development, regardless of gender, religious belief, or ethnicity.

I thank you.

[The prepared statement of Senator Wellstone follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL WELLSTONE

I want to thank all of you for participating in today’s hearing, and I apologize for

the delay due to a last minute briefing. I want to briefly introduce Angelina Jolie,

UNHCR’s Goodwill Ambassador, who has recently visited the Afghan refugee

camps.

Events are moving extremely quickly in Afghanistan, with the military successes

by the anti-Taliban forces in the northern half of the country, and with winter closing in rapidly, threatening the lives and well being of millions of Afghans afflicted

by drought and war.

The challenge the U.S. and its coalition partners now face is to translate the recent military successes into humanitarian action that delivers assistance to the Afghans quickly and effectively. The international community must continue to contribute significant resources to address the humanitarian needs of the Afghans.

There were some delays at our own agencies in releasing much needed funds. This

is unacceptable. We need to ensure that these resources arrive on the ground in a

timely and efficient manner.

With Northern Alliance control of the area across from Termez, Uzbekistan, excuses are running out for Uzbekistan not to open the Friendship bridge, which

would speed crucial supplies into the country.

Further, the security situation must improve. The withdrawal of the Taliban has

not resulted in a secure environment necessary for humanitarian efforts to move forward. There are deeply disturbing reports that Northern Alliance fighters seized

UNICEF employees and trucks, and that 89 tons of World Food Program supplies

were stolen over the weekend. It is unclear whether the Northern Alliance has the

capacity to provide security and establish law and order. Consequently, the United

Nations must move quickly to deploy a multi-national force to establish security so

that the humanitarian organizations can do their jobs.

We must also begin planning now for a long-term commitment to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. The people of the Afghanistan have endured 23 years of war

and misery, and the conflict has threatened international stability, and placed enormous burdens on their limited means. The United States must not just talk the

talk, but must also walk the walk—we must show Afghans that we are not going

to give up on them this time, and turn our backs on them as we did before. We

must show genuine solidarity and real generosity now.

It is time to reverse more than a decade of neglect. We must be willing to make

a multiyear, multinational and multibillion effort to rebuild Afghanistan. We must

move quickly to put in place a long-term economic reconstruction package for this

embattled nation, to be administered through the United Nations or another multinational entity.

We need to target assistance to the north now, which would have huge symbolic

importance and be a powerful incentive to the Pushtun leaders in the south to abandon the Taliban and join the U.S.-led effort. We know that many of the Pashtun

chiefs, including current supporters of the Taliban, are already on the fence. If the

Pashtuns who are now going hungry, saw significant assistance entering neighboring provinces, the seemingly intractable problem of forging a political consensus

in Afghanistan might become a whole lot easier to solve.

I believe our reconstruction effort must focus on rebuilding basic infrastructure

repairing shattered bridges and roads, removing land mines, reconstructing irrigation systems and drilling wells. Creation of secular schools will break the stranglehold of extremism, and allow both boys and girls to make positive contributions to

the development of their society. We must also rebuild the shattered health infraVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:27 May 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 75946 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
64

structure by establishing basic hospitals and village clinics. The Afghans have been

through enough hell. They deserve to live in a society where they can feed their children, live in safety and participate fully in their country’s development regardless

of gender, religious belief or ethnicity.

Thank you.

Senator WELLSTONE. Now, I know we are going to be joined by

Senator Boxer, but I think since we have already held the hearing

back for an hour we are going to proceed and then when Senator

Boxer comes I know she will want to make an opening statement.

We are going to start with Bernd McConnell, who is Director of

Central Asian Task Force and has done some wonderful work in

Bosnia and really is, I think, a real expert in the best sense, Director of Central Asian Task Force, United States Agency for International Development, and then he will be followed by Alan

Kreczko, who is Acting Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, Department of State.

Bernd McConnell will make it clear that Administrator Natsios

was more than willing to testify, but when we put the hearing off

for—he is now in the region, and when we put it off for an hour

it just proved impossible, logistics-wise, to do the communication.

Joel Charny is going to join us in panel 2. This past month he

has also been in the region. Mark Bartolini, vice president of Governmental Relations for the International Rescue Committee will

also be testifying, and we owe a special debt of gratitude to George

Devendorf, director of Emergency Operations for Mercy Corps, who

I just talked to, and just came back from refugee camps I think last

night, and who is utterly exhausted, but is here with us as well.

We are going to get a very important report from the ground and

from the people that are responsible for administering humanitarian assistance. I think this hearing could not come at a more important time, and I very much again thank all of the panelists and

journalists and others for your interest.

We will start out with Mr. McConnell.

STATEMENT OF BERND McCONNELL, DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL

ASIAN TASK FORCE, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, DC

Thank you, sir. First, I must apologize for not being Andrew

Natsios. We were just unable, as you point out, to connect the electronic dots. He did want to emphasize that he is most available on

his return over the weekend to come and brief you or anyone you

would designate.

We do submit his testimony, the testimony he would have given

for the record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Natsios follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ANDREW S. NATSIOS, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. AGENCY

FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Madam Chairman, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for

inviting me to testify before your committee on the rapidly evolving humanitarian

crisis in Afghanistan. I submit this testimony even as I am leading a White House

mission to the Central Asian Republics on Afghanistan’s northern border. This mission signals to the world the importance President Bush places on a robust humanitarian response to this crisis. I am also exploring ways to enhance coordination with

65

our United Nations and nongovernmental organization (NGO) partners in this historic effort.

BACKGROUND

As you know, Afghanistan is a country in crisis, a crisis that predates the events

of September 11th. Three years of drought have brought Afghans to the precipice,

but this did not have to become a famine. It was five years of brutal Taliban misrule

and neglect that have pushed Afghanistan over the edge. Nearly 1.5 million Afghans

are now at risk of starving and 5–7 million Afghans are dependent on outside assistance to survive the combination of a harsh winter, pre-famine conditions, and the

dislocation of conflict.

As I testified before you on October 10th of this year, the US Agency for International Development is working energetically with the World Food Program, other

international organizations, and international and Afghan NGOs to implement the

President’s humanitarian strategy in that region. Of the $320 million that President Bush announced on October 4th, USAID will implement $195 million for emergency

humanitarian programs. This includes $96 million of International Disaster Assistance, $95 million of P.L. 480 Title II resources, $3 million for demining, and $1 million for extraordinary operational expenses associated with the Afghanistan crisis.

We have already committed $51 million of the International Disaster Assistance

funds and $58.4 million of the P.L. 480 Title II money for aid organizations working

in Afghanistan.

The U.S. humanitarian strategy is fully in operation inside Afghanistan. By that,

I mean we are working diligently to deliver and distribute food and relief supplies

to reduce death rates. We are focused on distribution of this food to rural villages

to minimize population movements, because we know that death comes more easily

to those forced to flee their homes. We are devising programs to stabilize rural food

markets by increasing incomes.(i.e., effective demand) so that commercial suppliers

will bring food to those markets. We are developing humanitarian information for

radio broadcasts into Afghanistan that tell people food is coming, thereby ensuring

that aid reaches the intended recipients. Importantly, we are funding developmental

relief activities—what we call ‘‘spot reconstruction’’ to begin the process of recovery

even as we are preventing starvation.

Our geographic focus on the north is aimed at reducing the suffering of the most

vulnerable groups in the population, as identified by the world Food Program vulnerability assessment map. This means we have been concentrating in the past

month on opening entry points for food flows from the northern and western borders—through Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Iran. The international

aid community has pre-positioned relief stocks and trucks in these areas to be ready

to open the spigots when circumstances allow.

We are very pleased that the World Food Program has been able to increase its

delivery of food into Afghanistan so significantly—from an all-time high of 29,000

metric tons in October to 27,000 metric tons just in the first 11 days of November.

The challenge that we now face is that of the capacity of NGOs to distribute within

Afghanistan. Clearly, the absence of expatriate NGO staff and lack of security have

been the greatest obstacles to getting food into peoples’ hands.

CURRENT SITUATION

The stunning changes in the war campaign over this past weekend therefore

present important new opportunities to respond to the most pressing needs of the

north and northwest, but only when these military successes of the Northern Alliance are consolidated and converted into more secure circumstances within Afghanistan. Already, food is crossing the Turkmenistan border into Badghis and Faryab

provinces, where NGOs and international organizations like Save the Children and

International Organization for Migration are working.

When the road from Mazar-i-Sharif to Termez is secure, a high volume of food

can begin to flow into the northern territories because of the road network radiating

from Mazar. Use of barges to cross the Amu Darya River and the opening of the

Friendship Bridge at Termez by the President of Uzbekistan are essential to this

strategy. While barge traffic began yesterday, we are hopeful that the bridge also

will be opened quickly as it will allow up to 25,000 metric tons a month to pass

into Northern Afghanistan.

The World Food Program and the Russian emergency response agency,

EMERCOM, are working together to expand cross-border deliveries from Tajikistan.

However, reports indicate that the Kunduz-Bahglan area south of the Tajikistan

border remains very much insecure and may take longer than other northern provinces to open up.

66

Finally, the resurgence of the Northern Alliance in the Herat-Ghor areas may enable the World Food Program (WFP) to reach very vulnerable populations in the

Hazarajat central highlands and west more effectively. In fact, WFP reports that it

has already dispatched to the Hazarajat and Ghor areas more than 13,000 metric

tons of food, or nearly a half of the winter’s requirements.

NEXT STEPS

Upon my return from the region, I will redouble our coordination efforts with

United Nations and NGO partners to ensure that they have the support they need

to capitalize on these openings within Afghanistan. We have 65,000 metric tons of

U.S. wheat being off-loaded in Iran for transshipment to Mashad and the Central

Asian entry points and another 100,000 metric tons of food being prepared for loading in the United States. We have just ordered another 55,000 metric tons of wheat

and 17,000 metric tons of oil, pulses and blended foods to ensure that the WFP and

NGO pipelines are filled through February or March, 2002. We have also given WFP

a grant of $6 million for procurement of 15,000 metric tons of wheat in Kazakhstan

to meet immediate needs, but most of our food aid will come from the United States.

We will also actively engage with our NGO partners to increase our focus on spot

reconstruction or developmental relief. It will be critical for vulnerable Afghans not

only to eat for survival, but also to have clean water to drink, improved local roads

to markets, seeds and other agricultural inputs for spring planting—the basic elements that will begin the rebuilding process from the bottom up. These programs

will also show Afghans the tangible benefits of the ouster of the Taliban.

Finally, USAID will engage actively with our State and Treasury Department colleagues in the upcoming dialogue with other donors, IFIs and Afghans themselves

on how best to make the transition from a crippled Afghanistan to a recovering, rebuilt Afghanistan.

Mr. MCCONNELL. I thought I would just speak briefly about a

couple of things, one of which is his trip, and I would like to start

with a brief anecdote from the trip. One of the reasons we could

not connect those dots is because Andrew Natsios went to Afghanistan today.

He went south of the Tajik border into a place that, hopefully,

I will not butcher too badly in naming, Khohabakhodin, where

there are a number of IDP areas within the boundaries of Afghanistan.

The anecdote I would like to share with you he told me just a

little while ago, and that is, he went to what passes for a school

in one of the camps and asked the question of the children there,

what does America mean to you? The answer he got was, America

is where the food comes from. That was in his words quite a moving moment for him, and that is one of the messages that we would

hope to leave here today, and that is, food is moving into Afghanistan.

At the risk of giving a commercial here, the World Food Program

has done an absolutely magnificent job of moving food into the region. Currently, the major obstacle to the final distribution of that

food is the security situation and, as you point out, Senator, that

is something that has got to be better and got to be clarified.

If I may just throw out a few numbers here, the World Food Program monthly requirement for the entire country is 52,000 metric

tons. This last 30-day period is the first time ever that that goal

has been met. So far, halfway through the month of November,

World Food Program has moved 30,000 metric tons of food. Before

November, the most they had ever moved was 29,000 metric tons

for a whole month, and that was in October.

So they are doing an astounding job of moving the food. The

issue is, once the food is in the area, how do you get it precisely

67

to the areas of most need, and that, of course, is a function of the

security situation. The question of what change has occurred because of the dramatic events of the weekend and subsequently, the

most obvious example of what is changing is the Friendship Bridge

at Termez. The situation there, as we understand it, is the bridge

is not open.

Senator WELLSTONE. Is not open.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Is not open. The reason it is not open is that

there has not yet been a U.N. assessment done of the roadway between Mazar and the border, and as we understand it, that assessment will inform the Uzbek Government and hopefully encourage

them to make their final decision to open the bridge at long last.

I would emphasize that yesterday the first barge did, in fact,

move. It was very lightly loaded, 50 metric tons, mainly of nonfood

items. The river is quite low. They were being cautious in this first

barge about making sure it did not run aground. Yesterday it went

without problem. It is about a 18-kilometer ride on that barge from

one port to the other.

Today a second barge has, in fact, made that round trip, this

time 200 metric tons of food, and so barge traffic has begun. We

are hopeful and optimistic that the real key to the north, which is

to say the opening of the bridge, will occur early in the week. The

U.N. intends to run this assessment mission over this weekend.

Senator WELLSTONE. Mr. McConnell, before we go on, just since

there are a number of people here in the audience, maybe you

could explain—sometimes those of us who are very focused on this,

we get it at a micro level. Maybe you could put this in just a little

bit broader context as to the importance of the Friendship Bridge

and the food coming in from the north, and getting the approval

of the Uzbek Government, because this is one of the more positive

developments, that we can now bring in a lot of food from the

north.

Maybe you could kind of spell out what is going on here, and also

with the barge traffic, why this is such an important development,

and why we need to do this, if you could just embellish that point

a little bit.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Yes, sir, I will. The World Food Program surveys show that the areas in most need in Afghanistan are in the

north. Traditionally, food has come in from the south, southeast

kind of access. What is key to getting to the people in the north,

those in most need, both because of geography and climate and

Taliban misrule, the key to that is the so-called Friendship Bridge,

where some estimates are—remember, I gave the number of 52,000

metric tons a month will feed the country. Some estimates are, half

of that could come across this bridge.

I have not been there, but I am told it is quite an enormous

structure, and this was used by the Soviets for entry and subsequent exit from Afghanistan.

Senator WELLSTONE. And again, we have every reason to believe

the Uzbek Government will open it up, I gather, right? You are optimistic that they will? That is what we are waiting on. It is U.N.

assessment, but then the Government to give its approval. Can we

expect that to happen soon?

68

Mr. MCCONNELL. I think so. It is more of a State Department

question than one for us, but the concern the Uzbeks have expressed all along has been the security situation south of the

bridge, and that is why I say that if this assessment mission can

give those assurances, we would expect that the Uzbek Government would follow through.

Senator WELLSTONE. Well, we will move right to Mr. Kreczko.

Alan, thank you for being here.

STATEMENT OF ALAN KRECZKO, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF POPULATION, REFUGEES AND MIGRATION, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. KRECZKO. Thank you, Senator. Let me thank you for convening another hearing on the subject, and express my appreciation for the support this committee has shown for a robust humanitarian response in Afghanistan, which, as you know, has been a

major component of President Bush’s response to the situation in

Afghanistan.

I also wanted to say that we agree with most of the points that

you identified in your opening comment, including the need to seize

on the opportunity that is presented by the changed security circumstances to get as much assistance in as possible, in particular

in the north, where the need is the greatest, and that is what

Bernd McConnell and USAID are working so hard on.

We also agree on the need for the Northern Alliance to avoid

human rights abuses and interference with relief efforts. We agree

on the need for a reconstruction effort, and the U.S. and Japan will

be hosting a meeting November 20 in Washington on reconstruction. The aim is to seek agreement in principle on a multiyear,

multinational, multibillion reconstruction effort, and we agree on

the need for there to be a broadbased representative government

in Afghanistan, so on all of those fundamental points that you

made we agree.

Senator with your permission, I would just say a few things

about the refugee situation and how it has changed since we last

had an opportunity to brief the committee on that. Overall the

number of refugee flows to neighboring countries has remained relatively small, far fewer than had been originally feared. You remember, people were talking about 1.5 million new refugees. The

United States has continued to urge countries to maintain an open

border for those who need to flee persecution or conflict, but it remains the case that all of the countries maintain an official posture

of a closed border to refugee flows.

As in October, there have been no significant refugee flows toward the northern border with Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and

Tajikistan. There have been increased flows since we last talked toward Iran. Several thousand Afghans may have entered illegally,

and there have been some reports of forced deportations by Iran

back into Afghanistan.

Two camps were established by the Iranian Red Crescent Society

for Afghans moving toward Iran, but they were established on the

Afghan side of the border, and we understand that the Iranian Red

Crescent Society withdrew their support from one of those camps

69

because the Taliban moved armed elements into it. That camp is

now in an area controlled by the Northern Alliance.

Iran has done some more contingency planning with the U.N.

High Commissioner for Refugees for future refugee flows, and has

identified some sites for refugee camps that are on the border, but

none of those are opened at this point.

Pakistan remains the destination of choice for most people seeking to leave Afghanistan. Pakistan generally maintains a closed

border to refugee flows, but has made exceptions for certain vulnerable individuals. Roughly 4,000 individuals have been provided assistance at a U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees transit facility

in the southeast, and those people are now being moved to a new

camp in Pakistan that the Government of Pakistan has allowed to

open.

While the number of legal entrants to Pakistan has been small,

the estimates of those who have entered unofficially has grown

from the 10 to 20,000 that I mentioned to you last time to about

135,000 now. Those individuals have generally gone to live with

relatives or friends and receive little assistance from the international humanitarian community.

Similar to the Iran situation, some camps have been set up on

the Afghan side of the Pakistani border. The Taliban has been directing people to these camps, and some assistance has been provided in these camps, but the United States has not supported the

establishment of these camps out of concern that they are subject

to Taliban control and do not provide adequate security to refugees

or to assistance workers.

The extent of future refugee flows is uncertain. It is too early to

conclude that there will not be additional numbers. Nonetheless,

with our encouragement, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees

has shifted to planning, as well, for the return of refugees to Afghanistan. We encourage this planning. The return and reintegration of refugees and displaced persons needs to be a central element in the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Afghanistan.

Thank you, Senator.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kreczko follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY ALAN KRECZKO, BUREAU OF

POPULATION, REFUGEES, AND MIGRATION, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

President Bush is providing firm leadership in the international campaign to

eradicate terrorism worldwide. A key part of his efforts is directed at both the immediate and the longer-term problems plaguing the people of Afghanistan, and on

this front, too, the United States is providing leadership.

Compassion is an integral component of the President’s foreign policy, and it motivates America, even in these trying times, to lead the international humanitarian

relief effort for those most vulnerable in Afghanistan. As the President asserted,

‘‘We have no compassion for terrorists, or for any state that sponsors them. But we

do have great compassion for the millions around the world who are victims of hate

and oppression—including those in Afghanistan. We are friends of the Afghan people. We have an opportunity to make sure the world is a better place for generations

to come.’’

The President, on October 4th, announced a $320 million initiative to provide additional humanitarian assistance for Afghans—for both those inside Afghanistan

and for those who flee Taliban oppression to neighboring countries. The United

States has consistently been the largest donor to international humanitarian efforts.

With vital help from a number of countries around the world, our goal is to alleviate

the suffering that Afghans have endured for more than two decades, as a result of

war, severe drought, and the brutal, repressive rule of the Taliban regime.

70

The United States believes that all of Afghanistan’s neighbors should be prepared

to accept new Afghan refugees as needed, and that the international community

must be prepared to shoulder the economic costs incurred by the flight of desperate

Afghan people. In working with neighboring countries on potential new refugee

flows, we need to take into account the existing refugee situation. Over 3.5 million

Afghan refugees already reside in neighboring countries. The bulk of those are in

Pakistan, which generously has taken in some 2 million refugees, and Iran, where

some 1.5 million Afghan refugees reside. As with its contributions to relief efforts

overall, the United States has consistently been the largest financial donor to support those refugees. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge the remarkable generosity of Pakistan, Iran, and other neighboring countries in providing relief

and refuge to so many Afghans for nearly two decades.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees originally prepared contingency plans

for the arrival of as many as 1.5 million additional Afghans in the countries neighboring Afghanistan. Based on information available at the time of their original

plan, UNHCR estimated an additional 1 million Afghans would arrive in Pakistan;

400,000 in Iran; and 50,000 each in Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.

Those were planning figures, and the actual flow of new refugees has been much

smaller. UNHCR estimates that 135,000 Afghans have found their way across the

border into Pakistan since September 11, significantly fewer than originally anticipated. Possible reasons include: the international community’s ability to deliver continued assistance inside Afghanistan; Taliban restrictions on male departures; the

focused nature of the U.S. military campaign; and the fact that the borders of all

neighboring countries are officially closed. There has been no significant population

movement to the North, toward the Central Asian states of Turkmenistan,

Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. Turkmenistan and Tajikistan have, nevertheless, engaged in some contingency planning with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees

(UNHCR) and have agreed to facilitate cross-border assistance to Afghanistan.

Uzbekistan has agreed to the prepositioning of relief material at Termez, and has

now allowed relief material to move from barge to Afghanistan.

Iran also maintains a closed border. Reportedly a few thousand Afghans have entered Iran in the past several weeks, some of whom may have been deported back

into Afghanistan by Iran. The Iranian Red Crescent Society had established two refugee camps inside Afghanistan, with about 8,000 to 10,000 Afghans there. However,

we understand that the Iranian Red Crescent Society withdrew from one of those

camps because Taliban armed elements entered it. That camp is now reportedly in

the control of the Northern Alliance. Iran has done contingency planning with

UNHCR for larger flows of refugees, and has identified some sites for refugee camps

along its border with Afghanistan. Iran also is facilitating cross-border assistance

into Afghanistan.

Pakistan officially maintains a closed border with Afghanistan, fearing that an

open border and the prospect of relief inside Pakistan could attract hundreds of

thousands of new refugees, with attendant security and economic implications for

Pakistan. Pakistan has allowed some vulnerable groups to cross the border, and acknowledges that tens of thousands more have crossed unofficially. With Pakistan’s

authorization, UNHCR has established a transit center near the Quetta border

crossing, where initial assistance can be provided to new arrivals who are permitted

official entry. UNHCR has begun to move Afghans from the temporary receiving

centers at the Quetta crossing in the south—to new refugee camps. Those who enter

unofficially receive little assistance and fear deportation if discovered. Pakistan has

identified sites where UNHCR can establish new refugee camps, although the site

locations are in remote areas and security of humanitarian staff there will be a

great concern. UNHCR has prepositioned substantial relief materials in Pakistan.

Camps have been set up on the Afghan side of the Pakistan border, where individuals denied entry to Pakistan are getting some minimal assistance. However, we are

concerned that these camps are subject to Taliban control and do not provide adequate security to refugees or to assistance workers.

The extent of future refugee flows will be affected by the same factors that currently appear to be limiting outflows and, of course, how the military campaign

unfolds. Recent successes by the Northern Alliance has changed the dynamic within

the country and could provoke new refugee outflows, especially by those sympathetic

to the Taliban. We will continue to work with UNHCR, relief organizations, and

with Pakistan and other neighboring countries, to prepare for possible increased refugee flows.

Our ultimate hope, of course, is that Afghans will be able to return to their

homes. We have—despite the current fluidity of the situation—seen the voluntary

return of almost 3,000 Afghans from Iran to Afghanistan. Afghans in Pakistan are

following closely the events in Kabul and other parts of the country, calling relVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:27 May 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 75946 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
71

atives, and thinking about testing the waters for return. While continuing to prepare for refugee flows, UNHCR has therefore begun to prepare for the possible return of refugees to Afghanistan. We encourage this planning. The return and reintegration of refugees and displaced persons needs to be a central element in the

planning for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Afghanistan.

The United States supports a broad-based representative government. We support

the inclusion of Afghan women in the planning and future reconstruction of Afghanistan. We support their full participation in the economic, political and social life

of Afghanistan. Promoting human rights in Afghanistan, and particularly the rights

of women and girls, is a high priority for the United States. We have repeatedly

called on the Taliban to lift restrictions on access to health care, employment, mobility, and education of women and girls.

On October 5th, the UN convened in Geneva a meeting of major donors, as well

as Iran and Pakistan, to discuss the Afghan humanitarian situation. Attendees at

this meeting praised President Bush’s initiative and strongly endorsed the view that

the international community should make maximum effort to provide assistance inside Afghanistan, so that people would not be forced to leave in search of aid. The

meeting also endorsed contingency planning for refugee flows, and provided assurances to Pakistan and Iran of burden sharing to care for all new arrivals. Total offers of humanitarian assistance from over 40 countries—including President Bush’s

pledge of $320 million—now total some $800 million. For UNHCR, initial cash receipts were slow to match pledges, but now (November 15) the refugee organization

has received $57.6 million, of its $268 million request for the six months from October 2001 through March 2002. The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

has contributed $14 million of that amount, part of the Bureau’s contribution of over

$36 million to the current Afghan crisis.

The unambiguous message of that meeting was support for the Afghan people.

That certainly represents the attitude and endeavors of the United States as well.

We are not at war with the innocent people of Afghanistan, and we are doing all

we can to ameliorate the conditions under which they have long been suffering.

Senator WELLSTONE. Thank you. Just real quickly, Mr. Kreczko,

I appreciate the agreement and the work that you are doing. Again,

on the economic reconstruction, I was pleased to hear you say that

we are really trying to organize the international community.

I think, again, sometimes you know, these economic reconstruction plans, they stay abstract for too long. I think we are going to

need to get some action on the ground soon and some money on the

ground soon, because again I think you have got this vacuum

where all sorts of people are going to be dealing with all sorts of

people, and I think it is real important that we are there.

One very just quick comment, at the very end of your testimony

you talked about repatriation, and I am going to come back with

a question and ask you how we are going to deal with a lot of people who I would guess are going to want to be coming back, or

going to be coming back. They are not going to be waiting for any

official blessing to do so, and so I would be interested in your plans

there.

The other thing I want to talk about is, I know that the Pakistanis have opened up another camp, but it is in pretty awful conditions. I mean, it is remote. There is no access to water. I would

like to talk a little bit more about that and try and figure out exactly what kind of discussions we have had with the Pakistanis on

the border crossings. Are we encouraging them to open up the borders, or are we not now, not knowing whether they are Taliban?

I would be interested in that discussion as well.

Mr. Rogers.

72

STATEMENT OF LEONARD ROGERS, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE, UNITED

STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,

WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. ROGERS. I would just like to make a few brief comments. As

Bernd said, the Administrator submitted our written testimony,

but I think it is important to understand the context in which we

are going to have to assess this humanitarian operation in Afghanistan and also plan for the reconstruction.

Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world.

UNICEF estimates that even in a normal year 300,000 children die

from preventable causes, and that nearly half the children in the

country have malnutrition, so it is one of the poorest countries in

the world. It is also in the grip of a 3-year drought. There is nothing we can do except hope that the rains come normally, but if that

drought persists into the next year, then the reconstruction is going

to be hampered severely.

Many of the poorest people have lost all their assets. Their livestock herds have been liquidated. People have no ready source of

income, as you suggest, and it is going to be important to get people back to work earning income so they can buy food in normal

commercial markets.

Afghanistan has had 22 years of brutal conflict. There are 4 million refugees outside the country, and Afghanistan is one of the

most heavily mined countries in the world, so security is going to

continue to be a major problem.

The President has provided significant resources for the humani- tarian effort. USAID is responsible for managing $192 million of

that. Together with assets from USDA, we believe that is going to

allow us to provide approximately 400,000 tons of food. Some of

that food is already in the country. That volume of food will allow

the United States alone to feed 4 million people through spring.

We are welcoming other donors’ contributions which are now

coming in at a reasonably strong rate, so we believe that the resources are either in hand or coming onstream to allow an effective

humanitarian response.

I would be happy to answer your questions.

Senator WELLSTONE. Well, thank you for your testimony.

First of all, on the package, the $320 million, one of the things

again I want to repeat, it is past history now, but for a while OMB

was too slow in getting this money out to people on the ground,

and I want to emphasize at this hearing just as a matter of record

I know that a number of Senators had to contact them, and I just

hope we will not have any more problems with delay.

Of the $320 million committed by the administration, what portion of these funds—this could be for any of you—will actually flow

inside of Afghanistan as opposed to the maintenance of the refugee

populations in neighboring countries? Do you have any sense of

that?

Mr. KRECZKO. Well, Senator, it is hard to answer that with precision for the following reason. We know how much money was apportioned to our respective accounts, which is $125 million came to

the State Department refugee account, and the remainder went to

AID, but our money will basically follow the refugees, so if the refVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:27 May 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 75946 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
73

ugees return to Afghanistan we will be using our money inside Afghanistan to help with the return and reintegration of Afghan refugees.

If more Afghans leave Afghanistan to go to Pakistan, then our

money would be used there, so it is kind of refugee-specific, but

whether it is spent inside Afghanistan or inside Pakistan depends

upon events.

We also use a significant chunk of our money to support the

International Committee of the Red Cross, because that is our statutory responsibility, and that is activities inside, so I am afraid it

is not as easy to define it with precision.

Senator WELLSTONE. Mr. McConnell.

Mr. MCCONNELL. It is also important to remind ourselves that

the Presidential initiative was a regional initiative. The drought

that has been described is not peculiar just to the northern part of

Afghanistan. Tajikistan is suffering as well. Part of this money is

being used to address some of the food needs there.

Senator WELLSTONE. Well, God knows, I am not trying to play

off one group of desperately poor people against another, but I

would find it hard to believe that probably you are going to get

more people trying to leave to go to Pakistan. My guess is you are

going to have people starting to come back, and moreover, the people in Afghanistan, this has been like—they have kind of been living a nightmare, so there is all sorts of needs there, dire needs, and

so the people who could not leave in the first place were the elderly, the infirm, the poorest of the poorest of the poor people, and so

I guess what I would want to do is just emphasize that we make

that a priority, the internally displaced people in Afghanistan. I

gather there is no disagreement on that.

Mr. ROGERS. I think the simple answer would be that of our $192

million, excluding the $20 million that will be used for food in

Tajikistan, virtually all of that will go inside of Afghanistan, and

a significant share of the PRM budget will ultimately wind up in

Afghanistan as well, so I think the priorities are definitely on assisting inside Afghanistan.

Senator WELLSTONE. Well, I am glad we have that on the record.

Thank you.

Just to go back to Friendship Bridge one more time, if I understand this the right way, we have got a changed security situation

in the north. I mean, the Taliban are no longer in charge, so those

considerations are no longer paramount, is that right?

Mr. MCCONNELL. Yes, sir, but the security assessment that is

being anxiously awaited here will also look for evidence of mining

on the roads, but as far as active Taliban involvement, it is our belief that is gone.

Senator WELLSTONE. And again, the point being it is a dramatically different situation, so hopefully the Uzbek Government, after

we get the security assessment, should be able to grant approval

for use of that bridge. Talk a little bit about the differences it

would make having to do it just with barge traffic, the bridge

versus the way we are doing it now, just so, again, people can have

an understanding of why we keep talking about Friendship Bridge,

just what the difference would make in concrete terms. Right now,

74

we are doing it how, we are just doing it on the river, across the

river?

Mr. MCCONNELL. Even the barge traffic is in a way a breakthrough. That has just begun, and that is a lot better than before.

We are conducting in some areas airlift of food, to get food to the,

sort of the gaps, the places where we do not have food coverage.

What this will mean, again, is an unfettered movement through

the Friendship Bridge will essentially provide half the needs of the

country, needs as defined by those people in most need, those people who are in the most inaccessible areas.

I would like to go back one more time, the World Food Program

[WFP] is doing a superb job in getting food to the area. The issue

is reorienting the food distribution to the north, which as you have

pointed out is the area of most need. Friendship Bridge is key to

that. We do not want to do airlifts. It is expensive, it is inefficient,

and it takes resources away from the basic needs. This will allow

us to use a well-developed road network in the north that is so far

proving to be perhaps a little better than we had thought in terms

of year-round capability.

Senator WELLSTONE. Senator Lugar, I would just ask one more

question and then shift to you. Thank you so much for joining us.

The questions I asked, I was wondering what portion of the $320

million was going to be committed to actually flow inside of Afghanistan versus care and maintenance of the refugee populations,

and the reason I ask the question is because I think a lot of people

are going to be coming back, and I also think, among the elderly

and poorest in Afghanistan, it has sort of been their living hell.

And then the second question I was just asking was about

Friendship Bridge, and when we could see that opened up, because

that is going to make a huge difference coming over from

Uzbekistan.

I guess my last question is, what do you all think would be required from a security standpoint to reintroduce international staff

in the required numbers into Afghanistan? How quickly might this

happen, and in what regions of the country?

Mr. MCCONNELL. This weekend a U.N. team is going into Kabul

itself. The intent is, well, to look around obviously, but the intent

is, we are told, to leave a staff of 10 behind in Kabul. Feyzabad in

the north, the U.N. intended—and I do not know whether this occurred or not—to put their first staff in today on the ground. Mazar

is a big question mark because of some security concerns and some

of the reports you alluded to earlier, and so I think everybody is

anxious to get the internationals back in as quickly as possible. We

ourselves would like very much to get somebody on the ground to

do some assessing for ourselves, and we are attempting to attach

ourselves to one or two of those missions.

Senator WELLSTONE. Let me send it over—Senator Lugar, first

of all I cannot tell you how honored I am that you are here. You

are really probably one of the three, four, five Senators who have

been most engaged in international affairs with the most sophistication in the U.S. Senate, and the other thing that we have administration witnesses and then we have a report from people on

the ground in the second panel.

75

The other question I raised, and then I am going to send it over

to you, I said earlier when I asked the question that I thought

today is not too early for us to put together this economic reconstruction plan, because I think that it is going to be of key importance.

A lot of people are going to be wandering all around there. A lot

of people are going to be making deals. A lot of people do not believe, given our history, that we are going to follow through, and

I think we really need to be talking about all the infrastructure developments, and I especially think it would be a wonderful message

to the Pashtun in the south to see that happening in the north

right now, and that was the other thing we had talked about.

Senator Lugar.

Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for my tardiness. Senator Wellstone has been holding the fort

here and others of us have been over with Rich Armitage and Paul

Wolfowitz and Steve Hadley thinking about the situations they

brought to our attention.

Let me just pick up, however, on Senator Wellstone’s point, and

that is that a fairly large sum of money is going to be required, almost an endowment of this process. We have no idea how long military action will proceed in Afghanistan, but hopefully the attention

of the American public and our Government officials will last

longer than that. We must identify the resources in advance, not

only from ourselves, but also our partners, would seem to be essential, an international fund-raising effort.

I am certain this is part of your portfolio now to identify who is

prepared to step up for the long term with substantial funds.

I just want to follow through a specific aspect of this, just to get

a feel for how you envision the organization of this effort. Until

fairly recently, a number of our friends abroad were advising us

that, given what they felt was the halting nature of military operations, that we should stop the bombing during the holy days and

perhaps utilize that period for some international relief to show our

goodwill.

This was rejected by our military people and others, but at the

same time, everyone realized that the problems of winter and the

difficulties were likely to be substantial.

Now, that has not all changed, but nevertheless the on-theground situation in the country has changed, remarkably, in a

week. The bridge that Senator Wellstone was talking about from

Uzbekistan into Afghanistan is apparently open.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Senator, everybody desperately wants that

bridge open, but our information is that Uzbekistan has not yet

agreed to open it. This weekend, a U.N. assessment team will

make the run from Termez up—I am sorry, from Mazar up to hopefully form a decision, a positive decision by the Government of

Uzbekistan to open the bridge, hopefully next week.

Senator LUGAR. In other words, the bridge is physically OK, it

is the diplomatic situation.

Mr. MCCONNELL. And I think this team will certify that physical

OKness, but it appears to be OK to us.

76

Senator LUGAR. Well, let us say we have good fortune and that

works out, is it true that a thousand metric tons of wheat can come

across the bridge every day?

Mr. MCCONNELL. Yes, sir.

Senator LUGAR. That would be your plan, would it not?

Mr. MCCONNELL. Yes, sir. The working number is 25,000 metric

tons a month will come across that bridge.

Senator LUGAR. Now, just in terms of what happens to that

wheat, is it literally in the form of wheat, or is it flour, and how,

depending upon what it is, do you get it in some other form, and

what is the distribution network? How does it reach people?

Mr. MCCONNELL. It will reach people in basically the same way

as it does now. World Food Program will get the wheat into the

country. The NGO’s, the very fine NGO’s and PVO organizations

that have been doing such an incredible job inside will then do the

physical distribution. It is preferable that be done by truck.

The bridge that we are all so fond of here is sort of the giant funnel into the north, and I think we are all agreed that the north is

the area of most need. The World Food Program surveys identify

it as such, and the road system that we are aware of is such that

those trucks will be able to feed that half of the country very efficiently.

I ought to say that it is not the only route. The central highlands, the Hazarajat, is an area, too, of great inaccessibility and

great need. The World Food Program is, again, even now, without

that bridge being opened, able to, from newly liberated, apparently,

Kabul, bring food in, and there is almost 13,000 metric tons of food

aimed at the central highlands today, out of a, in order to get

through the winter, requirement of maybe 30,000 for that whole

area.

So there are good news parts of the distribution, but I would certainly agree that the bridge is key to the northern area of most

need.

Senator LUGAR. How do you arrive at the 30,000 figure, and how

do you determine how much wheat is necessary for the number of

people that are there?

Mr. MCCONNELL. I will not pretend to be an expert, having been

an employee of USAID for 6 weeks here, but the World Food Program, through people on the ground, conducts surveys to develop

estimates and for the Hazarajat, that area of the central highland

area, their conclusion is 30,000 metric tons will feed that population for the winter months, and we accept their calculation of

that.

Mr. ROGERS. Senator, a rule of thumb we use at USAID is that

2,000 tons of grain will feed 1 million people for a year. You can

push the math around a lot of ways, but that is a basic rule of

thumb.

Senator LUGAR. That is a very useful figure to begin to quantify

it physically, because you have got a thousand tons a day across

the bridge when it is open, and you have now control of the area

in a way that we did not a short time ago. That does not mean

every pocket of resistance is gone, but the possibilities of reasonably peaceful distribution by the NGO’s becomes a practical possibility.

77

Now, we do not have full control of the southern part of the country, and so that is another story, although we might in due course.

Now, how do you get it into the south? Are there routes through

Pakistan, then, that are more likely at that stage?

Mr. MCCONNELL. Yes, sir, but the thing we have to remember—

and again, I am going back to World Food Program, in their assessment of the country as a whole, whereas there might be hungry

people in the south, they are not those that are most gravely affected.

I mean, there is food in the south. Yes, there is turbulence, but

the traditional route through the Kabul area from Pakistan is certainly much more available to us now, or to the NGO’s now than

it was, but the critical need is in the north, and that is the significance of the new routes that are available. There is food in the

south, and I think we will not see the difficulty there.

Senator LUGAR. Now, how have all these NGO’s survived during

this most recent period, or are they coming back in? I mean, are

they now kind of liberated and can do their thing, or do they have

to come in?

Senator WELLSTONE. Some of them are smiling. They are going

to tell you, too.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Better the people who do the heavy lifting tell

you, sir, but the expatriates have been out for sometime. They are

jumping at the bit to get back in, and I think you will hear about

that in the next panel.

Senator LUGAR. I will not jump ahead in the story. I appreciate

your testimony. Thank you.

Senator WELLSTONE. I do, too. Thank you, and tell Administrator

Natsios we appreciate his cooperation and effort to be with us, but

I think, Mr. McConnell, we heard a lot from you. Thank you so

much.

Let me call now George Devendorf. We are going to start with

George out of deference, so he does not fall asleep, and Mark

Bartolini, and Joel Charny.

We will start with George Devendorf, who, as I said, just got

back last night from the region. George.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE DEVENDORF, DIRECTOR OF

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS, MERCY CORPS, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. DEVENDORF. Senator, thank you very much. Thank you in

particular for your leadership over these several months on this

very important issue.

As the Senator mentioned, I just returned last night from about

10 days in the region. I was visiting with our staff and our operations in Pakistan, both in Islamabad and in Quetta, in

Beluchistan, where I had the opportunity to visit a number of the

new refugee camps which have been established over the last couple of weeks near the border crossing between, the Chaman border

crossing heading up into Kandahar, and as you might imagine, and

as you have heard from us and others for some time now, the sites

which have been identified for these new refugee camps are inhospitable, to say the least. Nonetheless, you and agencies and NGO’s

are doing the best they can, along with Pakistani authorities, to

78

provide at least the minimum requirements for the families which

have come across.

I would point out these families have come, we have found, from

all over Afghanistan, not just from the southern regions, but from

Herat, from Mazar, even from areas around Takar, and so they

really represent a very wide variety of ethnic groups and geographic areas and so forth. What they have in common, clearly, is

they have just about nothing left, and that is why they have come

across.

So that said, I know for weeks now and for several months, in

fact, Mercy Corps and her colleague agencies have been trying as

much as possible to highlight the need for a significant amount of

resources to be made available to help respond to what are extremely broad and severe humanitarian needs inside Afghanistan

today, without at all trying to diminish the validity of that argument.

What Mercy Corps would like to do, and what we tried to do in

the prepared statement for today, is to try to look ahead a bit. We

do not think it is too early, particularly with the events of the past

week and the dramatic changes in the geography of the humanitarian effort inside Afghanistan, to really start thinking about

what we can do now, and how we can perform now in such a way

that it will more easily and more coherently lead to the revitalization of Afghan society, and what I would like to highlight in particular is the role that the market can play in that revitalization.

I have attached to our statement for today a photograph, again

a relatively simple example, but nonetheless a photograph which

was taken by our staff members on Monday in Taloqan. This is 2

days after the Norther Alliance forces had reentered that city.

That city is traditionally the hub of economic activity in that sort

of north central region between Mazar and the far east end of the

north of Afghanistan, and what it shows quite simply is a market

vendor doing his work, and what we found is that even during the

heaviest periods of fighting during the last 2 months, by and large

markets have continued to operate. Beyond that, the halala system

of informal cash transfers, the system inside of Afghanistan that

enables economic opportunities and activities to go on is once again

working in many areas.

What we would propose is that whenever possible, let us look toward revitalizing economic opportunities and economic activity inside the country as a primary way to help meet the supply needs.

Whether it be food, rebuilding necessary—I should say, materials

necessary for rebuilding, what-have-you, and there are things we

can do to support that, then I would suggest we focus on that as

much as possible.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Devendorf follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE DEVENDORF, DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY

OPERATIONS, MERCY CORPS

PRIORITIES FOR HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE IN AFGHANISTAN

Introduction

The stunning pace of the Taliban’s withdrawal from many areas of Afghanistan

over the past several days has lent considerable hope to the ongoing emergency huVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:27 May 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 75946 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
79

manitarian effort in the region. With the rapid advance of opposition forces have

come a number of positive developments that seemed quite unlikely only a few days

ago. Several new access routes have opened up, international relief staff have been

reintroduced in some areas, and limited numbers of internally displaced families are

now beginning to return to their homes areas. This said, numerous challenges remain—challenges that will severely test the international community’s ability both

to meet critical, live-saving needs during the winter, and to lay the foundation for

the longer-term rehabilitation of Afghanistan, a process that will ultimately come

to define the success or failure of the international community’s effort in Afghanistan. In this respect, the most difficult tasks still lay before us.

Mercy Corps, a non-governmental humanitarian organization, has been working

in and around Afghanistan since 1986. In the coming months, we recommend that

the following key considerations be taken into account as the US Government follows through with, and expands upon, it’s significant commitment to assist the people of Afghanistan.

KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE IN THE REGION

1. Demonstrate A Long Term Commitment to Afghanistan

There is today inside Afghanistan an overwhelming sentiment among people of all

ethnic groups that, after the Soviet occupation ended, the United States abandoned

Afghanistan. Not surprisingly, many Afghans are uncertain about this government’s motivations and wonder what sort of commitment the United States will make to

Afghanistan once Taliban forces have been defeated. The US Government has already made generous contributions to assist the people of Afghanistan—from the

more than $178 million that was dedicated to Afghan relief efforts during the last

fiscal year, to the $320 million in additional aid that this government announced

during October. In order to safeguard these investments, and to successfully address

the poverty and oppression that have directly fueled instability in Afghanistan in

recent years, the United States and other donor governments should take this opportunity to make a firm, long-term commitment to help the people of Afghanistan.

This commitment should be guided and informed by the considerations outlined

below.

2. Help Afghans to Help Themselves

Humanitarian efforts, including those meant to provide urgently needed relief assistance, should be firmly based upon strategies that help Afghan families and communities to restore their productive capacities as quickly as possible—in short, to

help Afghans help themselves. Massive amounts of both food and non-food aid are

currently being assembled in the region. Given the scale and severity of relief needs

inside Afghanistan, these commodities represent a necessary response that will form

the backbone of the international community’s emergency assistance effort over the

coming months. However, prolonged distributions of ‘‘free’’ food and non-food aid is

clearly not in the best interests of the Afghan people. ‘‘Free’’ aid is, in fact, rarely

free. Over time, it promotes apathy and a feeling of helplessness that directly undermines the sense of self-reliance and initiative that affected communities have traditionally relied upon. As a result, Mercy Corps strongly believes that free distributions of aid should be limited to immediate, life-saving efforts and that, as quickly

as possible, humanitarian assistance should seek to promote the capacities of Afghans to reinvigorate their own society and economy. Towards this end, we would

recommend particular attention be paid to helping Afghans revitalize both economic

markets and individual livelihoods.

3. Restore Livelihoods and Revitalize Markets

In a small but significant way, the photograph attached to copies of this testimony

serves to underscore the resilience of Afghan markets. Taken two days after the city

of Taloqan fell to Northern Alliance forces, it depicts a small-scale vendor offering

vegetables for sale on the streets of the city. Throughout Afghanistan, markets have

continued to operate during the on-going conflict. Prices for most staple foods have

increased, but not dramatically, thus indicating that economic supply lines have remained viable in many communities. In addition, the informal method of moving

money into and around the country—the Hawala system—is once again working in

several areas. These developments illustrate a simple fact—if the international community can help Afghan families to rebuild their asset bases and thus restore their

purchasing power, the marketplace can and will provide much of what is needed in

the way of food, non-food items, and reconstruction materials, etc. Mercy Corps

therefore recommends that humanitarian efforts focus on interventions such as cash

for work, access to credit, and infrastructure repair projects that target vital economical sectors, including transportation, agriculture, and livestock, etc. By re-inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:27 May 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 75946 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
80

jecting cash into Afghan society through these means, aid agencies can help families

and communities to more quickly regain self-sufficiency, and thus minimize their

dependence on international aid in the years ahead.

4. Ensure Security for Humanitarian Operations

Recent incidences of looting in Mazar and Kabul, among other places, underscore

the need to ensure the safety of humanitarian workers, facilities and operations.

The United Nations and major donor governments should continue to impress upon

both Taliban and opposition forces that they are directly responsible for the safety

of relief workers operating in areas under their control. Towards this end, UN-sanctioned international military forces should be deployed as soon as possible to help

ensure law and order until such time as a post-Taliban governmental structure is

firmly established.

5. Don’t Forget the Refugee Populations

Even under the most optimistic scenarios, it will be months if not years before

many of the nearly 4 million Afghan refugees in the region feel that it is safe to

return to their homes inside Afghanistan. The United States and other major donor

governments should ensure that sufficient resources are made available to assist

these groups and that governments within the region do not adopt policies that force

or encourage refugees to return home before it is clearly safe for them to do so.

Mercy Corps exists to alleviate suffering, poverty and oppression by helping people build secure,

productive and just communities. Mercy Corps has 15 years of experience in Afghanistan/Pakistan. This year Mercy Corps has assisted more than 500,000 people with drought relief and rehabilitation services, food aid, agricultural support programs, veterinary care for livestock, engineering and drilling wells, health, and sanitation projects. Since 1986, the agency has provided

more than $20 million in assistance to Afghanistan.

Senator WELLSTONE. That is very helpful.

Mr. CHARNY.

STATEMENT OF JOEL CHARNY, VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY,

REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. CHARNY. Thank you. I would like to echo the comments of

appreciation for the work of this committee and the way you have

been really providing leadership on the necessity of providing humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan. I really do honestly believe,

as an American citizen, that generosity of the U.S. in this crisis is

exceptional. In a way, it has been ironically underplayed by the administration. To make a large commitment, as we did at the outset

of this crisis, has been critical, and I think if we can stay the

course and stay for the reconstruction phase, that will be extremely

significant.

Many of the points that were made in my written testimony have

already been discussed in some detail, so I will just highlight a few

issues. One, on security, we have not really talked about the mechanics of how security should be provided at this stage. In other

words, the issue is law and order, and Mazar-i-Sharif right now,

the security situation is still very uncertain, and that begs the

question of what options do we have to achieve security immediately so that the opening of the bridge between Uzbekistan and

Afghanistan will really make a difference, so that whole northern

tier can be reached.

It seems to us at Refugees International you have on the one

hand the Northern Alliance perhaps could assure security. That

seems to be rather dubious, given what has happened over the last

few days, and the fact that they still have an ongoing conflict with

the Taliban in the southern part of the country.

The second option is providing security under basically the mandate or rubric of the coalition itself, and I read today in one comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:27 May 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 75946 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
81

munication that there is an idea being floated that maybe the

French and the Jordanians, I assume with a coalition mandate,

would go into Mazar and try to assure law and order in the short

term.

The third option, which is the one that I think we would prefer,

is to have a U.N.-mandated force, not a U.N. force, but one, as Ambassador Holbrooke, who is a member of our board of directors, as

he argued yesterday in the Washington Post, the Security Council

can mandate a force, a coalition of the willing, as it has been

called, and I think the advantage is that if the Security Council

does it, it gives a more international character to the operation,

rather than relying on something that might be interpreted as unilateral.

The second point I want to make is to stress the importance of

the commitment to reconstruction, and the fact that additional

funding will be required beyond the $320-million commitment. Refugees International is an advocacy organization. We are not an

operational NGO, but I hope our colleagues who are operational

can look forward to receiving funding for the reconstruction effort

that will be badly needed.

Even with the gains on the ground, however, I do want to point

out that this central highland area, the Ghor province in particular, the Hazarajat region, is still very vulnerable because of the

onset of winter, and it still may be necessary to do airlifts into this

region.

WFP is said to be organizing or preparing for these airlifts, and

I just want to signal that it is really critical that we get an operational plan from WFP as soon as possible. In other words, do they

really have the capacity to get food into this region in time. We do

not want to rely on ground transport and hope for airlift plans only

to find in December, well, sorry, we are not ready and it cannot

happen. I think we need to get on top of this situation as soon as

possible.

The fourth point I want to make is to point out—I know you are

all sympathetic on this issue, but I have to point out the incredible

irony of Taliban fighters crossing into Pakistan unimpeded, when

refugees are blocked at the border. Unfortunately, this is typical in

crises in the midst of conflict, but nonetheless, it is a stark irony

that Taliban fighters with their guns can cross into Pakistan, but

refugees with legitimate reason to cross cannot.

Finally, we are concerned that——

Senator WELLSTONE. Excuse me. Maybe you could tell me, why

is this the case? It is counterintuitive when I first hear it. The

Taliban cross with weapons, refugees cannot.

Mr. CHARNY. Well, I hope my colleagues agree, but I mean, basically there is a long history of partnership and collaboration along

the border region between the Taliban and local commanders and

local government officials on the Pakistani side, and when I was

at the border crossing just a couple of weeks ago I was told unequivocally by U.N. workers, Bangladeshi U.N. workers who had

been based in Kandahar, the Taliban were going back and forth,

no problem, even at the end of October.

Now that the force is disintegrating and the Taliban may need

shelter, they are going to get that shelter from commanders on the

82

other side that they have been collaborating with. That is the real

life—I mean, that is the truth of what is happening in the border

area, and we know that the crossing of refugees and the fear of

large numbers was something that Pakistan was worried about

from a political standpoint, that Musharraf did not want to jeopardize his standing with the Pakistani people, but it does seem

ironic from a refugee rights standpoint that refugees cannot cross.

Finally, we are concerned about the situation for internally displaced people inside Afghanistan due to lack of access. Now that

access is improving, it is critical that there be some central mechanism to get an overview of the situation for internal displacement.

UNHCR has capacity that has been underutilized, because the refugee crisis that was predicted has not in fact taken place. It may

be possible for UNHCR to provide leadership and even respond to

the situation of internal displacement inside Afghanistan in cooperation with NGO’s that they might wish to partner with.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Charny follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOEL R. CHARNY, VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY,

REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL

I want to thank Senator Wellstone and Senator Boxer for organizing this hearing

on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan and for inviting me to testify on behalf of Refugees International. I was recently in Pakistan, where I had the opportunity to monitor the situation in Afghanistan as viewed by the aid agencies based

in Islamabad and to travel to the Afghan border at the Chaman border crossing

with Pakistan. RI, which has been covering the humanitarian crisis in Central Asia

for the past year, presently has an advocate in Peshawar, the other main border

crossing point; he is monitoring the impact of current events on the movement of

people in the eastern part of Afghanistan. My testimony will draw both on our experience on the ground and on RI’s on-going analysis of the overall humanitarian situation in this highly complex emergency.

The capture of the northern half of Afghanistan is a military victory for the antiTaliban forces that should translate into a much-needed humanitarian victory for

the United States and others trying to fight famine and give hope to the Afghan

people. Specific, immediate actions are required, however, to translate the recent

military successes into humanitarian action that delivers assistance to Afghans in

a timely and effective manner.

Aid agencies estimate that as many as 7.5 million Afghans will need food and

other assistance this winter. Two decades of civil war, three years of drought and

five years of repressive Taliban rule have made Afghanistan one of the world’s most

acute humanitarian disaster zones. Between four and five million people had fled

the country as refugees or been displaced within Afghanistan before Sept. 11, and

six weeks of bombing have increased the displacement.

Approximately 75% of the Afghan people afflicted by famine live in the northern

half of the country, the area liberated by the Northern Alliance. Winter is closing

in on much of this area, so there is literally a race against time and snow to get

aid to vulnerable populations in the next few days and weeks.

Three steps must be taken now to head off a humanitarian disaster in northern

Afghanistan.

First, Afghanistan’s northern neighbors—Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and

Tajikistan—must move quickly to enable an increased flow of aid across their borders. These three former Soviet states tried to stop traffic to and from Afghanistan

prior to September 11. After the attacks against the U.S. they started to allow aid

to flow into Afghanistan, but the relief is not yet moving quickly enough. It is absolutely crucial that Uzbekistan open the Friendship Bridge that crosses the Amu

Darya River between Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. The U.S. has been trying to secure access to the bridge for weeks. Now that the Taliban has been driven out of

Mazar-i-Sharif, 40 miles south of the bridge, Uzbekistan has no excuse to keep the

bridge closed. Andrew Natsios, the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, has just completed talks with Uzbek government in Tashkent about increasing the flow of aid, and RI hopes that his efforts will lead to a speedy opening

of the Friendship Bridge.

83

If this bridge is open, the World Food Program says that it should be able to move

at least 16,000 metric tons of food a month across the river—almost one-third of the

food the WFP needs to move into Afghanistan each month—and much of this would

reach Afghanistan’s hungriest people. In contrast, with the bridge closed, food and

other badly needed supplies have to be loaded onto barges on the Uzbek side of the

border and then off-loaded onto trucks on the Afghan side. Further, due to the

three-year drought, the Amu Darya River is so shallow that barges are limited to

transporting small quantities of cargo in a single crossing. The sheer inefficiency of

this operation would greatly reduce the amount of supplies that the World Food Program and other agencies would be able to ship into the famine-stricken northern

central part of the Afghanistan.

Second, the security situation must improve. The withdrawal of the Taliban has

so far not resulted in the establishment of a secure environment for the humanitarian relief effort, especially in Mazar-i-Sharif. Since its capture one week ago, conflict has continued in the city. UNICEF has reported that one of its drivers was

killed in Mazar and WFP reports that 89 tons of oil, sugar and high energy biscuits

were stolen from a warehouse there over this past weekend. Overall WFP reports

that their food shipments across the border have slowed to a trickle in the past

three days, underscoring the urgency of the need to establish law and order.

The situation in Kabul appears to be more stable and Medicins sans Frontieres/

Doctors without Borders announced two days ago that a four-person international

medical team has returned to the capital for the first time since September 11. The

International Committee of the Red Cross has also re-established its international

presence in Kabul.

In the long, violent history of Afghanistan, murder and banditry often follow liberation. U.S. advisers working with Northern Alliance troops must discourage such

lawlessness in the strongest possible terms. The question remains, however, whether the Northern Alliance has the capacity to provide security and establish law and

order, especially given the need to continue to pursue remaining Taliban forces.

The options available to the international community to provide the security required to increase the strength and effectiveness of the humanitarian aid effort are

limited. With time of the essence, RI believes that the best option is for the United

Nations Security Council to authorize the deployment of police units and soldiers

from Islamic nations that have expressed a willingness to serve in a peacekeeping

capacity in Afghanistan. Countries believed to be interested include Turkey, Bangladesh, and Indonesia. Their duties should be focused primarily on establishing law

and order in the capital and in provincial towns, such as Mazar-i-Sharif and Herat,

that can serve as hubs for the aid effort. RI would like to stress that the world continually pays the price for the refusal of the UN and its major donors to establish

a standing, well-trained police force that could move quickly to establish rule of law.

Creating such a force should be a longterm goal. Now, the UN should identify a

multinational force to establish secure and stable conditions so that aid agencies can

do their work.

Third, the U.S. must accelerate the disbursal of aid funds and increase the

amount of money it has set aside to support relief organizations working in Afghanistan. President Bush has pledged $320 million for humanitarian aid to Afghanistan.

Most of that money will go for the purchase of food, but about 10% is slated to support the work of relief agencies in Afghanistan. Until recently that money flowed

slowly to the agencies, hampering their efforts to prepare for just the type of humanitarian opportunities that have resulted from continuing military victories. The

disbursements began to accelerate last week after complaints from Senators

Wellstone and Boxer, strong proponents of aid to Afghanistan. With more opportunities to deliver food, shelter, medical care and, eventually, educational services, the

government should consider increasing funds for relief organizations. Even in the

midst of this crisis, funds devoted to agricultural rehabilitation can start the process

of achieving food security for many more Afghans. Educating Afghan girls and

women, who were largely denied schooling by the Taliban, is essential if they are

to play a role in the reconstruction of their country.

Prior to the recent military advances by the Northern Alliance, two locations in

northern Afghanistan were of special concern. In Bamyan, Ghor, and eastern

Badghis provinces snowfall and sporadic conflict will cut off 500,000 people by the

end of November. It is now too late to reach many of the affected communities by

organizing overland distribution of emergency food. In Jawzjan, Sar-e Pul, Balkh,

and southern Samangan in the north central portion of the country the battle for

the pivotal town of Mazar-i-Sharif limited humanitarian access throughout the region. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) estimated that there were some 500,000 internally displaced people in this region alone,

many facing another winter without proper shelter.

84

If security can be rapidly established in the area around Mazar-i-Sharif the aid

effort should be able to reach the vulnerable and the displaced in the north central

region of the country. For the vulnerable people of the central highlands, however,

winter weather is the main obstacle to humanitarian access and air transport is the

only option to provide the estimated 20,000 metric tons of wheat required once overland shipment becomes impossible. The UN World Food Program (WFP) is organizing the logistics for air lifts into this region and is attempting to identify NGOs

with provincial networks that might be able to assure adequate preparation of the

landing sites and distribution to vulnerable people. The United States should press

WFP to present its exact implementation plan to ensure that it is credible and will

go forward on schedule. If WFP is not able to present a credible plan to get assistance into the central highlands, then other alternatives for air lifts may need to be

considered, including the use of coalition or other military aircraft in support of a

WFP-managed operation.

The focus on the wheat pipeline and the delivery of this staple inside Afghanistan,

while fully justified, should not detract from the importance of other urgently needed items. Supplementary foods such as lentils, beans, oil, and sugar are also essential. Nonfood items such as blankets and shelter materials are needed to help vulnerable Afghans survive the bitter winter. With Afghan women experiencing the

highest rate of maternal mortality in the world (860 per 100,000 live births, compared to 12 in the United States), RI wishes to highlight the availability of low-cost

clean delivery kits, consisting of a plastic sheet, soap, and a new razor blade to cut

the umbilical cord. These kits, available from the United Nations Population Fund,

should be included in aid distributions to help reduce the terrible rate of maternal

mortality in the near-total absence of a system of basic health care in rural Afghanistan.

The impact of the developments of the past week on the movements of displaced

people and refugees is difficult to assess. The borders of neighboring countries continue to be closed to Afghans seeking protection and asylum. Since the outset of this

most recent crisis, RI has continuously called for these borders to be opened, to no

avail. Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan is lengthy and porous and thus at least

135,000 Afghans have been able to cross the frontier illegally. These refugees, however, have no official status and very few of them can be reached by UNHCR and

non-governmental organizations. Many are living with families in urban areas in

Peshawar or Quetta, while others have managed to sneak into existing refugee

camps where they scramble to obtain access to food and shelter. The apparent compromise achieved in late October between the High Commissioner and the Government of Pakistan to allow vulnerable people into the country on a temporary basis

has so far not resulted in substantial numbers of Afghans being able to access protection and sustenance legally.

Reports today indicate that Taliban fighters have been crossing into Pakistan in

large numbers with their arms. Thus, the Pakistani border is open to the Taliban

but not open to legitimate refugees. This stark irony is typical of crises of displacement in the midst of conflict and underscores the political underpinnings of Pakistan’s decision to keep the border closed.

Interviews in the past several days with Afghans who recently crossed into Peshawar in Pakistan indicate that they feel abandoned in Pakistan but are uncertain

if and when security will permit their return. A number told RI that they left after

their homes or fields were bombed; others left when they lost their jobs or means

of livelihood. They gave the impression that incentives in the form of economic support or reconstruction assistance will be required for them to opt to return.

Since the start of the bombing campaign new displacement has primarily taken

the form of people fleeing cities and towns, where the bombing had been most intense until the end of October, to the countryside, either to live with relatives or

to find temporary shelter in their village of origin or other safe location. With almost

all urban areas in Afghanistan now in the hands of the Northern Alliance, we assume that most of these people will now opt to return to their homes, if security

can be assured. Along the border with Pakistan RI staff report that there are no

longer large concentrations of displaced people. They may already have begun to return to their homes in the light of the changing military situation.

RI would like to underscore that it has been practically impossible to obtain an

accurate and comprehensive picture of the situation for internally displaced people

inside Afghanistan due to the lack of access. Now that parts of the country may become more secure, a strategy for identifying the location of the newly displaced and

the scope of their needs is urgently required, followed by a rapid targeted response.

To address the potential gap in providing this assistance, RI recommends that

UNHCR, in cooperation with experience NGOs, should play the leading role in responding to their needs.

85

Hunger, poverty and lawlessness afflict Afghanistan, a country where hundreds

of thousands of people could die of starvation and exposure this winter. The significant advances in the coalition military effort over the past week, while promising

from a humanitarian perspective, do not in and of themselves create the security

required to mount the effort needed to save lives. Urgent action is needed more than

ever to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe for the Afghan people, who after two

decades of suffering deserve nothing less than security and the means to survive.

Senator WELLSTONE. Mr. Bartolini.

STATEMENT OF MARK BARTOLINI, VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. BARTOLINI. Thank you, Senators, for inviting me to present

the International Rescue Committee’s view on the crisis in Afghanistan. I particularly want to thank you, Senator Wellstone, for your

really exceptional leadership on this issue.

A week ago, the International Rescue Committee—and Senator

Lugar, you asked this question about what the NGO’s were doing.

We have been active in the region for 21 years. We have been in

Afghanistan right after the Soviets left for about 12 years. We have

about 1,500 staff that we work with through our local partners,

and they really have been doing heroic efforts over the last 2

months. We do not have any expat staff in yet, but we probably

will in the next few days. I know Mercy Corps and a few other organizations are going to send their expat staff back in.

A week ago we were working in all-Taliban-controlled areas of

Afghanistan. We were in the north, the southwest, and the east.

Today, we are working in no Taliban-held areas of Afghanistan. We

are working in some areas in the east where it is hard to tell who

is in control. Paktia and Lowgar are two regions which are too difficult right now to tell who is in control.

I want to touch on five areas that I think are critical, and one

I hope the other panelists have touched on is access and security.

While there certainly seems to be a very favorable turn in the situation, we are waiting for the situation to resolve itself. I spoke to

our staff this morning up in Mazar-i-Sharif. It is very uncertain.

There is still fighting going on.

We have been asked by the Northern Alliance commanders in

the region to continue to suspend our operations until Saturday,

while they set up a garrison, and they will put military forces in

the region to try to create some sort of law and order, but it is still

anybody’s guess whether or not—the Northern Alliance obviously

have some political imperatives to demonstrate that they can create a situation for humanitarian assistance to proceed and for law

and order, but having been in these situations in the past, it is possible we will face harassment, bribes, many of the things we were

facing under the Taliban, and for these reasons I would echo Joel

Charny’s call for some sort of multinational force to go into Afghanistan to assure that humanitarian assistance can continue.

Also, I think another critical dimension of this is the type of displacement that could occur, and this was a big fear of many Afghans. There was a fear of bombing, which made many flee, but

there was also a fear of what would happen if the Northern Alliance moved back in. They have very stark memories of the early

nineties during the civil war.

86

And through our work, especially in Eastern Congo, where we

have done dramatic studies on the link between displacement and

mortality, if we see this population in Afghanistan, which is so

decimated, displaced in large numbers, we will see significant mortality, and I do not think we are out of the woods on the question

yet, so we really think security is the key to this situation now.

Let me turn to the political equation, which is, of course, directly

linked to this, and there is concern that events of the last week

have outstripped the political process in terms of establishing a

viable unity government, and we cannot stress too much the importance, we think, of moving forward on some sort of framework government that we can put in place as soon as possible to help stabilize the situation.

Third, I want to touch on something Senator Wellstone raised

earlier, and that is resources. The U.N. appeal has been oversubscribed for the crisis in Afghanistan in terms of pledges, but there

can be a difference between pledges and the actual contributions

that arrive in cash, and so we cannot stress enough the importance

of governments coming forward with their pledges and fulfilling

them.

Also, there is still moneys out of the $320 million supplemental

that need to go through the appropriations process, and we would

urge that that is streamlined as much as possible, because while

there are, I think, sufficient resources for the short term, I think

within a few months we are going to be looking at—out of this

$320 million we are going to need new resources to continue our

work.

Fourth, I would like to touch on the issue of refugees, and there

are some 4 million refugees scattered between Iran and Pakistan,

and clearly there is an opportunity here to create an Afghanistan

that these people can return to, and we all saw the dramatic repatriation in Kosovo, some 800,000 people. I do not think we are

going to see the speed, because of the conditions inside of Afghanistan, that we saw in Kosovo, but certainly we can work quickly to

try to effect that repatriation which will not only give these people

who are living in really deplorable conditions, most of them, a new

lease on life, but it will also, I think, go far to stabilize the region.

The other issue we have since this crisis began, we continue to

call for open borders. We think that is crucial. It is mandated

under the refugee convention and under international humanitarian law, but having said that, we also want to point out the danger, and I think it was—I am not sure if it was George or Joel who

touched on this, but the danger of Taliban and their fighters crossing into Pakistan. We have been seeing that over the last few days.

In these tribal areas there are Pashtu, and they are going to be

very sympathetic to the population, and they could be an extremely

destabilizing factor in Pakistan, and so while we call for open borders, we also recognize—and this is very difficult to do. There are

some 2,000 kilometers of border that Pakistan has with Afghanistan, but some sort of screening mechanism.

The camps that have been set up inside Pakistan in the northwest province frontier, frontier province, are very close to the border, within 10 kilometers. This really provides an ideal staging

area for troops. It is one of the reasons that we have been opposed

87

to transfer of refugees out of some camps into these newer camps,

aside from the fact that they are also very difficult to service.

Finally, let me touch on the long-term response. The withdrawal

of the United States development assistance in the early 1990’s

was a contributing factor in the deteriorating conditions that led to

the rise of the Taliban. To ensure that the massive efforts we currently have underway can be sustained, Congress will need to appropriate something on the scale that you are talking about, Senator, a dramatic economic package for the region. I think that is

a really critical priority.

Rehabilitation needs include a health care system, the agricultural system, and we are not talking in some cases massive

projects. Even on a very local level, a simple irrigation system at

relatively minor cost, that could make a dramatic difference on the

Afghans’ ability to feed themselves.

We need to remove land mines. It is the most heavily mined

country in the world. I had a report from our staff last week. We

work in a camp up in the north, in Mazar-i-Sharif, called the Stoki

camp. There is about 15,000 families in that camp. Six children

went out—it has gotten very cold up there—went out to search for

firewood. Three of them were killed when they stepped on a land

mine, and the other three were severely injured. This is an unbelievably common occurrence in Afghanistan, so clearly mine clearance is one of the priorities.

Rehabilitating orchards. The livestock in the famine belt region

in the northwest of the country, the people have sold virtually everything. They are literally eating grasses and roots. The livestock

in some of these areas has been depleted up to 80 percent, and the

livestock is critical to the economy of the region for farming, for

their very livelihood. Seeds are going to be another critical need.

We did get some seeds up into the Mazar-i-Sharif area about 2

weeks ago. There was some rainfall, and so that was encouraging,

but people have eaten their seeds. There is less than 10 percent of

the viable seed left in Afghanistan. They are going to need massive

seed programs come spring for planting.

Finally, after 22 years of war, as Senator Wellstone said, the Afghans deserve to live in an Afghanistan where they can feed themselves—we need to help them to do that—to live in safety, to educate their children, and to participate in society, no matter their

gender, their ethnicity, or their religion.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bartolini follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK BARTOLINI, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT

RELATIONS, INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to

present the International Rescue Committee’s (IRC) views on the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan.

Mr. Chairman, the IRC would like to express its deepest sympathies to the victims and their families of the 11 September attacks. These attacks, and the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan which predated 11 September, are now inexorably

linked. There is a clear imperative to prevent future attacks against civilians and

to bring the perpetrators to justice.

The methods the United States employs to meet these objectives defines us as a

people. The President has stated that the Afghan people are not our enemy. The

Administration and Congress have appropriated $320 million dollars to respond to

immediate humanitarian needs in the region. And the President has stressed that

88

the United States will assist Afghanistan over the long-term, helping the country

rebuild after 22 years of war. In the final analysis, it will be the United States’ adherence to these promises, and not any one action, that will determine to what extent Americans can expect to win the ‘‘hearts and minds’’ of the people of the region,

and the extent to which, in this time of great national trial, we live up to our own

highest ideals.

In my testimony today, I will provide a brief overview of the humanitarian situation and touch on five issues that are key to ensuring that the needs of the Afghan

people are met.

OVERVIEW

The IRC implements programs in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. In concert with

local partner agencies inside Afghanistan, the IRC employs over 1,500 Afghans who

are heroically endeavoring to assist 750,000 vulnerable individuals, 75–80% of

whom are women and children. We are in contact with our staff on a daily basis

from our office in Peshawar, Pakistan. In Afghanistan we are working in the North,

Southwest and East, in a total of eight provinces, including the cities of Mazar-iSharif, Herat, Kabul and Jalalabad. We are distributing food, shelter materials,

clothing, medical supplies as well as seeds, firewood, stoves and hygiene kits. Other

sectors in which we work include health care, water and sanitation, education, agriculture and infrastructure rehabilitation.

Afghanistan suffers from one of the lowest rated indices for the human condition

in the world. Prior to 11 September the World Food Program had identified some

5.5 million people in need of food aid. The infant mortality rate at 18% is the highest in the world. A quarter of all children die before they reach their fifth birthday.

1,700 mothers out of every 100,000 die in childbirth, life expectancy is 46. And approximately 90% of girls and 60% of boys that are of school age are affected by illiteracy. Many civilians, especially women, suffer from persecution and other violations of their human rights.

The country has suffered from 22 years of war and 3 years of a severe drought.

Fighting and drought has internally displaced over 900,000 people, most having sold

everything they owned before taking flight. Some have even sold their children seeing this as the only way for their children to survive. The drought has seriously degraded the condition of millions of civilians caught in this 22-year cycle of violence.

Nutritional surveys reveal an increase in malnourishment with some areas approaching famine levels.

In parts of the ‘‘famine belt’’ 80% of herds of sheep and goats have died due to

the drought. Farmers have been forced to sell or eat their seed for food. Crops have

failed and not produced seeds. Only 10% of Afghanistan’s seed needs are currently

viable. Children can be seen pulling grasses and roots for food, at great personal

risk as the country is littered with the largest concentration of landmines in the

world. Just last week three children were killed and three injured by a land mine

explosion as they searched for firewood outside of the Sakhi refugee camp near

Mazar-i-Sharif.

The situation deteriorated even further after 11 September. In fear of coalition

bombing and a power vacuum following a fall of the Taliban, Afghans fled the cities

of Kandahar, Khowst, Kabul and Jalalabad. Taliban and lawless elements raided

aid warehouses, stole vehicles, blocked convoys, demanded bribes and harassed

staff. Given the displacement and disruption in food supplies, the World Food Program is now estimating some 7.5 million Afghans who are in need of food, clean

water and shelter this winter.

Recent surveys inside Afghanistan revealed famine and prefamine conditions in

several areas of the country. And some refugees entering Pakistan have exhibited

signs of severe malnutrition. Under such conditions people, especially children, succumb more readily to easily treatable diseases such as respiratory infections, vitamin A deficiency, measles and diarrhea. The harsh conditions of winter also will fall

hardest on these vulnerable individuals.

Despite all these obstacles humanitarian agencies continue to work. In the last

two weeks the level of aid reaching the most vulnerable populations was increasing.

The World Food Program has set a target of 52,000 metric tons a month. Already

in the first two weeks of November they have moved in 27,000 metric tons. In one

area most in need, the Hazarajat, WFP has moved in 13,000 metric tons and the

requirement for the entire winter is approximately 30,000 metric tons. The secondary distribution of this food to the beneficiaries will be done by NGOs like IRC

still operating in Afghanistan. Supplementing these deliveries are NGOs who are

contracting with local traders to bring food from neighboring countries into designated areas. Several American NGOs are just now ramping up their operations

89

after having received USG funding. Will it be enough? That is a very difficult question to answer, and is dependent on a number of variables. In all likelihood we will

avert an escalating humanitarian crisis in some, hopefully most, regions of the country. But there still exists the very real possibility of changing conditions that will

make access to some areas difficult if not impossible.

ACCESS AND SECURITY

The dramatic fall of Taliban-held areas over the past several days presents both

opportunities and dangers. Our staff in Mazar-i-Sharif reported on Monday a chaotic scene with bodies in the street, revenge killings, and looting of aid agencies.

Many IDPs have expressed fear that the country could return to the chaos and brutality that marked the civil war years of the early 90s.

Over the coming weeks the security situation will determine the success or failure

of aid operations. Some agencies have already begun to return expatriate staff to

Afghanistan. They are to some extent the ‘‘canaries in the mineshaft.’’ The extent

to which they can carry out their programs unhindered and in safety will determine

how many more agencies are able to return staff and to what degree operations can

continue to be expanded.

If the security situation allows, there are opportunities to do significant airlifts

into the most vulnerable regions, including the Hazarajat and Mazar-i-Sharif. Convoys from the Central Asian Republics can better access vulnerable areas of western

Afghanistan. Efforts should be redoubled to urge the Uzbek government to open the

Friendship Bridge at Termez, a vital link to northwestern Afghanistan. One estimate is that up to 25,000 metric tons a month can cross that bridge, half of Afghanistan’s monthly requirement. And as that bridge provides the most ready access to

the north, where the need is greatest, its opening would be a significant boost to

aid efforts.

With most of the significant vulnerable populations in the southwest and northwest falling out of Taliban hands, there is an opportunity to rapidly increase the

level of aid reaching the most vulnerable populations. Steps should rapidly be taken

to deploy a multilateral security force sanctioned by the United Nations Security

Council to provide some level of security to territory now held by the Northern Alliance. Such a force could provide protection against ethnicity-based retribution, support a transitional government and protect against lawlessness and banditry that

could potentially cripple aid efforts.

There is a danger that further displacement could occur if the security situation

is not stabilized. In a population as stressed as that now found in much of Afghanistan, displacement will almost certainly lead to higher mortality rates. Epidemiological studies the IRC has conducted in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo expose

a clear link between displacement and increased mortality. This has led us to

prioritize our efforts to try and sustain people in their homes. And with the threat

of bombing now over, this strategy becomes all the more imperative.

The severity of winter will also play a significant part in the humanitarian equation. It will determine access to many higher elevation areas and it will pose the

additional requirements of providing shelter supplies and clothing to keep people

alive. In the north, we are trying to provide IDPs with a three months supply of

food so that they can return to their villages rather than try and survive in a rudimentary shelter or tent.

RESOURCES

The United States government, in combination with other donors, has contributed

significant resources to address the short-term needs of the Afghan people this winter. The imperative now is to ensure that those resources arrive in a timely manner.

Despite a United Nations appeal that has been oversubscribed, pledges do not always translate into actual contributions. There were some delays in getting the first

tranche of money from the supplemental out to the agencies that needed those

funds. The remaining supplemental funds for humanitarian response will need to

go through the appropriations process. As with the first tranche, speed and flexibility of use will be key to ensuring they are most effectively spent.

THE POLITICAL EQUATION

There is concern that with the dramatic events of this past week, military action

has gotten too far out in front of the political imperative of constructing a coalition

government. The long-term success of this humanitarian intervention will largely

depend on the viability of whatever coalition government is formed and the ability

of such a government to act independently of neighboring states. The fact that this

90

process is still in its infancy, augers for the rapid deployment of a security force to

ensure stability while this process moves forward.

REFUGEES

Pakistan and Afghanistan’s other neighbors should respect the right of first asylum and allow refugees fleeing the conflict to cross their borders. Refugees should

not be forcibly repatriated back to Afghanistan in violation of the Refugee Convention and international humanitarian law.

This being said it is important to point out a potential threat to Pakistan’s security with respect to the border areas. The border with Afghanistan is roughly 2,000

kilometers long. Much of the border areas are ‘‘Tribal Areas’’ where the Government

of Pakistan faces legal and political limitations in exercising its control. These areas

are predominantly Pashtun. It is possible that Taliban and Arabs fleeing the south

could be a destabilizing influence if they infiltrate these areas in Western Pakistan.

For this reason, we see the need for careful screening at the border to ensure that

Afghans entering Pakistan are bona fide refugees.

The new camps in Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province are extremely difficult

for aid agencies to work in. They are located in insecure areas, the water table is

in some case over 1,000 feet down, they are close to the Afghanistan border, susceptible to manipulation both by tribal leaders and belligerents entering from Afghanistan. The United States should continue to advocate for their relocation with the

Government of Pakistan and the UNHCR.

LONG-TERM RESPONSE

The withdrawal of United States development assistance in the early 1990s was

a contributing factor in the deteriorating conditions that led to the rise of the

Taliban. To ensure that the massive efforts currently underway are sustainable,

Congress will need to appropriate further funds in order to address longer-term rehabilitation and reconstruction needs in Afghanistan. Priority rehabilitation needs

include rebuilding the health care system, reconstructing irrigation systems, removing land mines, rehabilitating orchards, increasing livestock, providing seeds, and

assisting in education.

After 22 years of war, ten of which were fought with United States support

against a brutal Soviet occupation, Afghans deserve to live in an Afghanistan where

they can feed themselves, live in safety, educate their children, and participate in

society to the fullest extent—regardless of ethnicity, religion or gender.

Mr. Chairman thank you for allowing the IRC to provide its views today before

the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Senator WELLSTONE. Thank you. Just superb testimony, and I

just want to thank each of you for your wonderful work. People like

you inspire me.

I have three questions. I will go through them quickly, then we

will move to Senator Lugar. I was—I guess, Mark, you were the

one that said this, and it got me thinking. Originally, and I want

to talk, the recent press makes it appear as if, now that the Northern Alliance has taken back many key cities in the north, that the

security situation is good and humanitarian relief will flow easily,

and I want to ask you about the security situation on the ground

and also your assessment of the Northern Alliance’s ability to establish security and promote law and order, and then I want to add

a couple of things.

Because of what you said, it sounds like a number of you have

said already that we need some kind of U.N.-mandated force, not

just for the sake of bringing the relief in, the humanitarian assistance in, but it seems like, Mark, what you said, I thought, was

very interesting, which is that if we have a repeat of what happened before with the Northern Alliance, and you have all sorts of

people fleeing the Northern Alliance, they are going to die, they are

going to be internal refugees.

91

So let me get some sense of Northern Alliance has taken over

these key cities, ipso facto, security situation is good, humanitarian

relief will be able to flow easily, or what is your assessment of

where we are at right now?

Mr. BARTOLINI. I think we are really in a waiting period right

now. Clearly, the Northern Alliance has a political imperative to

demonstrate that they can control the situation, but it is very unclear whether they will have the command and control down to

their soldiers to actually effect that, and in Mazar-i-Sharif we saw

aid organizations looted by the Northern Alliance. It was not just

the UNICEF convoy. There were other aid organizations that suffered from this.

In Herat we have not seen that problem. It has been calm down

there, but I think it is really too early, and clearly the government,

the Northern Alliance has moved very quickly into Kabul. There is

no Pashtun representative in this coalition, and I think that is

going to create very serious security problems unless it is worked

out quickly.

Mr. DEVENDORF. I would just echo that. It would indeed be truly

ironic if, with withdrawal of Taliban from these areas, the international community was, in fact, not able to expand humanitarian

assistance.

Senator WELLSTONE. George, to a certain extent—I know this

will sound odd to some people, but to a certain extent you had

some cooperation from some of the Taliban, did you not? I mean,

I am not saying 100 percent, but is that not true, that you had

built up some kind of working relationships with them?

Mr. DEVENDORF. Sure. Every agency that was continuing to run

operations in Taliban-held territories had at least the acquiescence

of those authorities, if not the outright support. What the Taliban

brought to the areas which they controlled was law and order. It

was a very severe form of that, but of course that has broken down

in recent weeks, further complicating operations inside, and just

the basic assurances that any agency would want to have before

undertaking large-scale operations, simply to support what Mark

was just saying, the Northern Alliance forces are the de facto responsible entities in the entire north of the country right now and,

as such, I believe major governments and the U.N. should hold

them responsible for the safety and security of the humanitarian

operations ongoing in their areas.

We have seen a couple of examples where Northern Alliance

forces have offered to safeguard or help provide protection to some

humanitarian compounds. Of course, while that was going on,

there were also lootings taking place of humanitarian compounds

by Northern Alliance forces.

What is clear is that, more so than even any normal military

force, the Northern Alliance is an alliance in name only, very disparate levels of command and control based upon the different individual personalities across their ranks, but again, I think that the

same measures should be held with the Northern Alliance, and

that is, are they cooperating and providing assistance, and if they

are not, clearly we would seek the assistance of the U.N. and the

major donor governments to try to encourage that as much as possible.

92

Senator WELLSTONE. And just a quick reaction from any one of

you all, and then I will go to Senator Lugar, and I will put my last

two questions together.

To me, in my mind there are three things to do, and I want this

to be a working committee, and we want to be helpful, and one of

them is working with our Government and from this committee as

well to communicate a very emphatic message to the Northern Alliance that this is now your responsibility, to make sure that the relief work goes on and that people are to create the conditions on

the ground for security so that this humanitarian relief gets to people. That is No. 1.

Second of all, to think about or to propose that we really do need

some kind of, along the lines of what Richard Holbrooke was talking about, and what you have talked about, not an actual U.N.

force, but a United Nations-sanctioned force, international force to

go in to help create these conditions on the ground.

And then the third thing, everybody today, everybody has talked

about the importance—and this is the first thing you started talking about—of reconstruction, that it is not too early for us to think

about how we walk our walk when it comes to an economic reconstruction package, that that is terribly important for all sorts of

reasons, so we do not repeat what we did in the past, because the

people in Afghanistan deserve a different life than a living hell,

and also, from very real politic reasons, as you have this huge vacuum, and all sorts of people are going to be wheeling and dealing

in there, and people can go in any number of different directions,

and this is going to have a lot to do with whether or not we can

create the kind of conditions for stability.

Those are the three things to work on, at least as I see it.

Mr. CHARNY. That sounds like a good agenda. What I want to

stress, because as you know, a lot of people in Washington get awfully nervous when you start talking about U.N.-mandated forces,

I think what is needed immediately is basically police who can try

and ensure stability and law and order in some of these key towns,

so I do not want to raise the specter of 200,000 U.N.-sanctioned

troops fanning out all over Afghanistan, because that is when people understandably begin to get nervous.

The idea is to either help the Northern Alliance assure security

and stability, or, if they cannot do the job, replace them at the level

of assuring basic law and order. Just to underscore the necessity

of this, I heard an interview with the WFP spokesperson in

Islamabad this morning, and he said that virtually no WFP convoys had crossed into Afghanistan in the last 3 days because of

concern about the security situation, and so while the overall picture that Bernd McConnell painted is accurate, that major progress

is being made, they have almost suspended operations in this uncertain time, and we just—we need every day. Every minute is critical to get food in and to get other supplies in in the coming days.

Senator WELLSTONE. Senator Lugar.

Senator LUGAR. Thank you. I salute you, as the panelists have,

for focusing our attention on this. Our powers, whatever they may

be in this committee or in the Senate, are often what we are doing

today, and that is trying to illuminate a situation and provide some

93

oversight but also a forum for people well-informed, as you are on

the ground, and with associates.

There is a very steep learning curve for each one of us in the

Senate, and to think through what is happening in the region as

the Northern Alliance proceeded, toward Kabul, there was anxiety

as to whether they should enter before the southern Afghans were

to join them. On the other hand, anxiety was expressed, as to who

will police the situation while the Taliban pulls out and before a

new government is in place.

So apparently, some Northern Alliance people came into the city

to hold things down to a dull roar. This created great anxiety with

the Pakistanis, and as we heard President Musharraf and his press

conference with President Bush describing atrocities in the past,

and the reasons why Pakistan has great anxiety, but if not the

Northern Alliance, who?

So the idea that Secretary Holbrooke has presented makes a lot

of sense, but it requires some implementation. It would require our

State Department and foreign ministers of other countries to coalesce with that suggestion, with Secretary General Annan or somebody to implement what we are discussing.

This is a public forum, with well-informed people attempting to

get the word out, and an agenda that needs to be met. Meanwhile,

as you have all suggested, because the policing powers are uneven,

perhaps better in some places than in others, the problems for the

NGO’s or for those who are offering humanitarian relief are substantial. The risks remain even if the military situation is improving.

Our own military people are not in a position to do this job. They

are at best auxiliaries to the Northern Alliance, or whoever is involved in ground fighting. Our forces pass messages back through

the chain of command of what they observe, and that is helpful,

and we found this with the testimony of Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr.

Armitage and Mr. Hadley this afternoon, as the Senators queried

them for the last hour and a half about all sorts of things, including the humanitarian situation, including this bridge and the

wheat and so forth.

So for whatever comfort it may be, they are reasonably well-informed, but becoming more so because we are interested in this situation and continue to pursue it with the administration.

I suppose what I finally come to is, there is this whole problem

of nation-building, who reconstructs, or who even constructs for the

first time an Afghanistan that works. This is a situation in which

there would be, ideally, some coalition of forces, who in the past

have not moved along well, and in a country that, as you have described in the testimony today, with the highest infant mortality

rate that I have ever seen—180 per 1,000, as opposed to 12 in the

United States. This is an awesome dilemma, long before we got

into the war, and nutrition problems likewise—5.5 million people

I think one of you pointed out in your testimony, even pre-war,

quite apart from this situation.

So whose responsibility is this? How does the world assist in the

rebuilding of Afghanistan. There are a good number of Americans

who feel that that is well beyond our ability, and furthermore,

94

many people in the rest of the world would agree we ought not to

be the major factor, although a contributor to this.

Do you have any suggestion as to who does try to do the nationbuilding, who tries to bring together these coalitions of people who

might be able to provide governance? How do we put this together

in a fairly short period of time, so that there is some hope?

Our military objective is still al-Qaeda, and the terrorist cells.

The Taliban came into this simply because they refused to cough

them up. They were in the way, so they are paying the penalty for

shielding the terrorists, but the military effort is the terrorists.

Now, the collateral damage is obviously the rest of the country,

and the problem is how you continue to prosecute the war, and at

the same time bring about some reorganization in the area that

has been affected.

I am just curious, after this long preamble, whether anyone has

some thoughts on this subject.

Senator WELLSTONE. That was a preamble well worth listening

to.

Mr. DEVENDORF. If nothing else, I think it aptly summarizes just

how complex this situation is, and Senator, in answer to your question, I wish I had a short one. What I can say is that I firmly believe that if the U.S. Government tries to take upon its shoulders

the full weight of rebuilding Afghanistan, it will fail. There is no

way around that. It will fail in humanitarian terms, economic

terms, political terms.

Afghanistan has always been an area of the world adverse to

centralized rule. It has long been the scene of conflict, both internecine and international. I do not think we can hope to change

those overnight.

What the international community can do is play a supportive

role, supportive in terms of our diplomacy and in terms of our economic strength, to assist Afghans to try during this moment, which

is perhaps one of the most optimistic moments in Afghanistan’s

history, at a time when the international community is more than

ever focused upon trying to be constructive and assist people in

that region to help them move forward the task of identifying what

sort of governmental structure it is that is going to work for their

people in their area of the world.

Not necessarily to come with a preconceived notion of what that

might look like, but be ready in good faith to meet good-faith efforts by the Afghan people and their leaders, both the current ones

and those that we hope will develop in the current weeks and

months and years, to reward them for honest progress made toward that objective.

Senator LUGAR. That is a very good point. This is a situation in

flux now, because of these crisis situations. A year ago, the situation was very bad in terms of infant mortality, but it would have

been totally inappropriate for us suddenly to decide in a hearing

like this that Afghanistan has enormous problems and we ought to

get in there and wrench it around.

But now, with the whole situation in flux, the international community in there, there are opportunities, even out of the crisis, to

improve the situation for the people of Afghanistan.

95

Mr. CHARNY. To me, I have done a lot of work in Cambodia,

where the international community faced not an identical but a

similar challenge of reconstructing a country while reconstructing

a viable political framework for the country to go forward, and I

think, based upon my Cambodian experience, I would make a few

points.

One is that it is not necessary for the political process and the

reconstruction process to be lockstep together. There will be opportunities to do reconstruction work even before the political dispensation is clear, and I think we should seize those opportunities.

We have to be really patient on the political side. I mean, I have

never in my career seen a country as riven and as politically complex as Afghanistan, and if anyone tries to play God and create a

new structure that does not have the support of the Afghan people

through a participatory process that includes women, that includes

all ethnic groups, that government will fall so fast, no matter how

much international support it has, so again, for what it is worth,

and again in the spirit of almost having a seminar discussion, I advise incredible patience on the political side while seizing opportunities to rebuild, even starting at the local level.

I mean, if you have got an area of Afghanistan that is safe,

where local people can participate in their own development, go for

it. Put money into that place while patiently working on the political process at the same time.

Mr. BARTOLINI. First of all, I agree with George. You clearly outlined the complexity of the situation. There are no easy answers,

and I agree that the U.S. cannot do this on our own. However, we

are doing quite a bit on the humanitarian side. We are providing

the bulk of the assistance going into Afghanistan, and we have

been for the last few years, and I think we obviously need to do

that.

But on the political side, I do think that there is a road map that

we can look at as to what we do not want to follow, and your question as to the American people, and their question as to why we

should do this at all, I think of you look at Afghans, they really

were our proxies in one of the most important battles of the cold

war.

They did have very much a functioning society prior to the Soviet

invasion in the seventies, and we did try to help them after the Soviet withdrawal, but I think the U.S., it was not only on the U.S.’s

shoulders, but we became frustrated with the intervention from the

surrounding countries, and we basically just gave up on them, and

I think that is the point that we cannot do again, when we look

at the situation that we are in today, and it will not be an easy

process, and I do not have any easy solutions.

It does seem that the U.N. will have to get involved at some

point in terms of the nation-building aspect of this, but my plea

today is that we do not do what we did in the past, and that is

for whatever trials and tribulations we have to go through on the

political side, that we stick it out.

Senator WELLSTONE. We should finish, and I think Professor

Lugar has really raised the key question. I have here a statement

from Senator Boxer, who was at the briefing and then could not

come over, and I almost—I feel like—I know that if Barbara was

96

here she would want to talk a lot about the role of Afghan women

in economic reconstruction, and I wonder whether you all might

comment on the ways in which that could become a priority.

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

Thank you Senator Wellstone, I am grateful that we are teaming up to co-chair

this, our second hearing on the tragic situation in Afghanistan.

And, thank you so much for your leadership on this crucial issue of providing humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. You have been a strong and forceful advocate for Afghan people who are suffering not just in Afghanistan, but also in neighboring countries as refugees.

The United States, and indeed the international community, must understand

that the military operations in Afghanistan are only part of the strategy in ensuring

that Afghanistan is no longer a safe-haven for Osama bin Laden and other terrorists.

While the Taliban has lost a lot of ground—especially in the northern part of the

country—it does not mean that the humanitarian situation will be easily solved.

In fact, it was repeatedly pointed out in our last hearing that the humanitarian

crisis did not start with U.S. and allied airstrikes. It is the product of over 20 years

of war and a historic and horrific drought.

Of course, this crisis is exacerbated by the harsh policies of the Taliban. And, I

hope that during today’s hearing we will learn how recent events on the battlefield

will help facilitate aid to regions of Afghanistan that were previously controlled by

the Taliban.

I also hope we can examine the longer term humanitarian needs of the Afghan

people.

If we are to ensure that Afghanistan ceases to be a haven for terrorists, we have

to provide for the long term reconstruction needs of that country. We need to help

Afghans set up a broad-based government that represents all groups—including

women.

And, we need to provide for the long-term security of Afghanistan that will likely

include an international force to keep the peace during the post-Taliban transition.

After the Soviets left Afghanistan in the late 1980s, we did not do enough to help

bring stability and lasting security to the Afghan people. We can not make that mistake again.

I look forward to hearing from our two panels of witnesses this afternoon to hear

their ideas on providing for the short-term humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, as

well as the long term reconstruction effort.

Thank you.

Senator WELLSTONE. I think it is an important question in and

of itself, and I have got to ask that in behalf of my good buddy,

Senator Boxer as well. Just real quickly, could you do that—not as

an aside. I just do not want to keep you a real long time. George

just got back in last night. Any kind of reflections or comments you

all might want to make?

Mr. BARTOLINI. Well, I laid out in my testimony some of the potential problems I see in the coming months in terms of providing

aid, but I also agree with statements that have been made, and you

mentioned, Senator Lugar, that there are incredible opportunities

here for Afghanistan, and clearly this is one of them.

Of all the civilians that have suffered under the Taliban rule, I

do not think anybody has suffered more than women, and as to the

mechanism of more directly involving them in the political process,

I really cannot offer too many specifics. I think it is a difficult thing

to do in that part of the world, but clearly there are a number of

organizations at grassroots level in Pakistan that have been working on this for sometime.

The IRC has an adjunct, the Women’s Commission for Refugee

Women and Children, and this has been an issue that they have

97

really focused on, and so there are nascent efforts, not so nascent,

actually, now. They have been working for years to incorporate

women’s views, to build them into the political system, and with

the events of the last few days I think we have a real opportunity

there.

Senator WELLSTONE. George, did you want to say anything?

Mr. DEVENDORF. Maybe very brief ones. I agree completely with

Mark’s statement. This is a society which has been getting by, to

use that term, with the creativity and productivity of half its people for far too long now, and in order to try to rectify that belief,

agencies such as ours and the U.N. will really need to focus on education first and foremost for Afghan women, but then also look at

ways to improve their productivity through credit schemes, through

vocational training, health training and other things, that really

should not come as add-ons to existing projects, but should, in fact,

be thematic and cross-cutting for all the activities that we engage

in.

Senator WELLSTONE. I think Senator Boxer would love that word,

not add-ons.

Let me just tell you that I think this was a superb hearing, a

superb hearing because you are here, and also because we had excellent testimony from the administration, and I think the next

hearing the subcommittee is going to have after—we are going to

be gone for a week—is going to be on economic reconstruction, and

what the key components of that will be, and get some people,

Dick, that can think through—as you said, this is part of what we

want to use the committee for is an educational forum.

I mean, no one wants to be arrogant, and God knows, it does not

work anywhere, and it does not work there, in Afghanistan, but

you just provided us with so much helpful information. I thank you

so much.

And Senator Lugar, it is an honor that you have joined us.

Thank you.

Senator LUGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman—great hearing.

Senator WELLSTONE. The committee will stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the subcommittees adjourned.]

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

[Oxfam International—10 October 2001]

REBUILDING AFGHANISTAN: AN AGENDA FOR INTERNATIONAL ACTION

The international community has begun to respond to the urgent humanitarian

needs in Afghanistan. These efforts need to continue and intensify. But the needs

of the country and its people will go beyond this immediate humanitarian crisis. Afghanistan will require a sustained international commitment to achieve peace and

to rebuild the country after more than 20 years of war. This is not a short-term

task; the international community will need to stay engaged, both politically and financially, for many years to come.

Despite the current climate of fear and uncertainty, many Afghan citizens continue to work for peace and reconstruction in their country. Oxfam partners are

working today to provide education to girls, to provide clean water to villages, and

to remove landmines left behind by war. These groups and many others are continuing this important work and are ready to be part of an effort to rebuild their

country.

98

It is not too early to begin making the political and economic commitments that

will be required to rebuild Afghanistan. To this end, Oxfam recommends the following.

1. AN INTENSIFIED EFFORT TO ADDRESS WIDESPREAD HUMANITARIAN NEED IN

AFGHANISTAN AND IN NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES

All efforts must be made to get food to Afghan people inside the country. Food

is most likely to reach people in need if the aid effort is impartial and separate from

military action. Assistance should be delivered through the UN and partner agencies, using existing distribution mechanisms (truck and donkey convoys) and local

organizational capacity (local professional and traditional groups) to the extent possible. The USA, the European Union, and neighboring countries should ensure that

borders are opened; respecting people’s right to seek refuge, and that adequate assistance is provided, meeting the standards established under international humanitarian. law and as set out within the Sphere framework. Particular attention should

be given to the protection of women in a context where there is greater vulnerability

to gender-based violence.

2. A UN-LED EFFORT TO ESTABLISH A BROAD-BASED POLITICAL COALITION IN

AFGHANISTAN

A UN mission in Afghanistan should draw lessons from previous experience in

East Timor and Mozambique in order to ensure an effective transition to national

governance. This process should be guided by the following principles:

Responsive and accountable governance, which gives space to civil society to

participate in the political process.

Recognition of all ethnic, religious, and regional groups in any process of

transition.

Representation of women in structures of government and political dialogue.

Adherence to international human rights and humanitarian law, and to the

international conventions on rights to which Afghanistan is a signatory.

Ensuring support for these principles will only be possible if there is a sustained

commitment by global powers to put aside historic enmities and alliances, to cease

supporting single factions, and to invest in a broad-based national coalition.

3. CONTROLS ON ARMS SUPPLIES TO THE REGION

The continued flow of arms to Afghanistan is a major cause of destabilization. As

part of a longer-term strategy, the UN and neighboring countries should develop a

comprehensive disarmament plan for Afghanistan and the region.

4. A RECONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR AFGHANISTAN

An ambitious plan is required to resolve the chronic poverty, displacement, and

damage caused by over 20 years of war. A reconstruction plan for Afghanistan will

require strong leadership from the UN, in order to ensure real and perceived impartiality in the delivery of assistance. This plan should incorporate a regional strategy

for addressing the grave conditions of poverty, displacement, and humanitarian

need suffered by Afghanistan’s neighbors. Critical needs will be in the areas of:

Health and Education

Long-term development for Afghanistan requires that resources be focused particularly on education and health. Educated women who have been restricted from

working in their profession (especially in the health and education sectors) must be

re-integrated into society and allowed to contribute to the rebuilding of Afghanistan.

An equitable education system for boys and girls, minority and Pashtun, urban and

rural populations, must be developed.

Women’s rights and representation

A specific strategy to address women’s exclusion will be required in any reconstruction plan. Development plans should recognize the many existing women’s organizations in the country, and those operating from neighboring countries. The UN

Gender Advisor post for Afghanistan should be filled immediately, and should participate in the highest levels of decision-making. Afghanistan should be supported

in carrying through its commitments as a signatory to the Conventions on Civil and

Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. Afghanistan should also be encouraged to ratify

CEDAW.

99

Support to Afghan civil society

Afghanistan has been largely portrayed as having no organizational structures

outside of religious extremism and military factions. But there is an important professional, non-sectarian civil society that will ultimately determine the success of

any efforts to rebuild the country. Afghanistan has also been home to some of the

most important and courageous women’s organizations in the region. These groups

should be acknowledged and supported as part of any reconstruction effort.

5. DONOR COORDINATION

This will be crucial, given the significant amount of funding coming into the country. Donors should support the leadership of Lakhdar Brahimi in his new role as

UN Special Envoy to Afghanistan in charge of the UN’s overall humanitarian and

political work in the country. A starting point for this mission should be the important work that was done on the 1999 Strategic Framework for International Assistance document, which went through wide consultation with international and national organizations. Donors should be committed to providing sustained and substantial funding.

6. THE ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

This will be increasingly important in ensuring that there is adequate monitoring

capacity of the political transition and reconstruction efforts. The EU should demonstrate its long-term interest by setting out a comprehensive strategy in support

of the UN effort. The EU should extend the Common Foreign and Security Policy

from its current focus on the Balkans and the Middle East to include Afghanistan

and its neighbors.

CONCLUSION

In 1995, Boutros Boutros Ghali said that Afghanistan had become one of ‘‘the

world’s orphaned conflicts—the ones the West, selective and promiscuous in its attention, happens to ignore.’’ The current climate of war has again brought attention

to Afghanistan’s historic suffering. It is time now to ensure that it receives the attention it deserves, and does not once again slip into the realm of forgotten crises

that the world has left behind.

For more information about Oxfam’s work in Afghanistan, please go to

www.oxfamamerica.org; for more information about Oxfam’s advocacy and policy work in Washington, please contact Bernice Romero or John Ruthrauff at 202–496–1180.

[Oxfam Briefing Note—1 November 2001]

FOOD HAS NOW RUN OUT FOR MANY AFGHAN PEOPLE

For over four weeks Oxfam International has been increasingly concerned about

the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. We have been calling on

all parties for a pause in military action and for the World Food Programme urgently to step up the trucking of food into Afghanistan before winter sets in. We

now fear that time is running out for some communities. For others, time will run

out if food deliveries do not dramatically increase in the next weeks and months.

This failure by the international community to deliver enough food, combined

with growing insecurity, has left hundreds of thousands of people suffering acute

food shortages. In some areas of acute need, the bombing and the increased fighting

from the Taliban and Northern Alliance has added to a climate of fear that has

made many truck drivers and aid workers too frightened to work.

Given the significant differences across Afghanistan, both in terms of need and

access, any options must be specifically designed to meet the conditions on the

ground. This may require a range of actors negotiating access to different areas of

the country, and different approaches according to local conditions. They must reach

all Afghans in need including those who may become trapped in their villages by

the coming snows and spreading violence. This will require a flexible approach that

draws from the local knowledge of Afghan organisations and international agencies

operating on the ground.

We are therefore calling for:

1. The trucking of food to be dramatically increased to areas where access is

still possible (including most of the central provinces of Bamyan, Uruzgan and

Wardak). There are still thousands of people that can and must be reached by

a significantly increased delivery of food into Afghanistan by land, and by air

drops and lifts into secure zones. Greater diplomatic pressure is required to enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:27 May 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 75946 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
100

sure that neighbouring countries are facilitating trucking into Afghanistan by

easing bureaucracy at borders. This is a priority option for zones considered accessible and will require increased efforts by WFP to move higher quantities of

food into the country.

2. The United Nations, the ICRC, and the coalition governments to consider

more radical options for some regions (including parts of Faryab, Ghor, Balkh

and Badghis) where food is already running out. This could include the negotiation of safe routes and safe zones for food delivery, and air drops. We know that

some of these options are not the most effective way to get food to people, and

that trucking would have been better. But given the level of the crisis in some

areas, all options must now be considered. It should not be forgotten that the

Geneva Conventions clearly establish the obligation of all warring parties to ensure that food and medical supplies reach civilians.

3. A pause in all military action, including air strikes, at least in some zones

so that food stores within the country can be replenished. The specific areas and

timing should be negotiated and co-ordinated by the United Nations. We believe

that this would remove an important fear that is preventing truck drivers from

working in some areas of acute need.

New food aid is moving into some parts of Afghanistan. But seven provinces in

the north, north-west and centre of Afghanistan include areas of acute concern. Reports of deteriorating security, and the rapid onset of winter in mountainous areas,

come on top of the existing need for substantial food aid. Oxfam draws this conclusion from WFP estimates in July predicting that food would run out within 3–6

months in these selected areas. While there is no reliable information about population movements since September, there are also no reports of significant numbers

of refugees from these provinces. This suggests that the majority of people are still

in their homes and may have even been joined by people fleeing the cities.

At the start of November, some but limited new food is entering the country, and

winter is closing in. WFP’s earlier projections suggest that parts of Afghanistan are

on the threshold of a far deeper crisis. It is now likely that:

In the north and north-west, in parts of the four provinces of Badghis,

Faryab, Ghor, and Balkh, 400,000 people are already suffering acute food shortages. At least 1,300,000 will probably have little or no food by the end of December. At least 700,000 of these live in Faryab.

Around 350,000 people in Badghis, Ghor, and Faryab are located in areas

soon to be largely cut off by the onset of snows during November. After that,

aid will only be able to get through with extraordinary measures to keep overland routes open or supply by air:

In the north-east, in parts of Badakhshan, around 260,000 people will be

largely cut off by the onset of winter this month, and will have little or no food

by the end of December. They too will need especial efforts to get aid to them.

In the central provinces of Bamyan, Uruzgan and Wardak, 13 of the 25 districts may be largely cut off during winter because of their high terrain, affecting over 540,000 people.

Oxfam and its partner organisations continue to deliver assistance in some of

these areas, where security allows. Our current aid is mostly food purchased locally

through Oxfam grants, and distributing food supplied by WFP in the central highlands and north-east. In Ghor, Badghis and the mountainous parts of Herat and

Farah, we will be doing everything possible to support partners to keep roads open

during the winter.

The war further complicates this picture, because even in the zones that are not

cut off by winter snows, accessibility for aid workers is severely limited by insecurity. Taliban soldiers and other militias have looted aid offices in Kandahar, Mazari-Sharif, Ghana, Kunduz and other areas. Insecurity in Kandahar and Herat is due

to a break down of law and order; in Ghor and Badghis it is due to increased fighting between the Taliban and Northern Alliance. Continued bombing in most parts

of north and central Afghanistan, and the use of cluster bombs, have created a climate of fear that severely limits the ability of WFP and other agencies to continue

food deliveries. Islamic NGOs that are currently delivering food into the east believe

that they could do much more if fear by truckers could be diminished.

101

[Oxfam Briefing Note—9 November 2001]

BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE: THE PLIGHT OF THOSE SEEKING REFUGE FROM

AFGHANISTAN

War and drought in Afghanistan have generated the second largest exodus of refugees in the world. Before the current military campaign, there were 3.6 million refugees in neighbouring countries and abroad; now tens of thousands more have fled

towards Pakistan and Iran. The conditions faced by internally displaced people and

refugees are far below any acceptable standards. Oxfam is calling on the governments of the region and the international community to take urgent action to ensure that basic needs are met and that people’s rights are respected within international humanitarian law.

Although the numbers of people who have fled across or towards borders are uncertain, it is clear that people are on the move, fleeing food shortages, bombardments, and violence. The UN estimates that 80 per cent of the population of the

southern city of Kandahar has left. Thirty per cent of the population has left Herat

in the west, and several other towns are also nearly empty. Many have simply fled

to the countryside, but others have sought to cross into neighbouring countries, although relatively few have been allowed to cross the borders.

According to the UN, the Taliban is actively preventing people from leaving Afghanistan, even those in need of urgent medical attention. Gross human rights

abuses by the Taliban against people fleeing east from Kabul have been reported.

Abuses by uncontrolled forces will inevitably increase with a breakdown of law and

order in many places.

The humanitarian situation in camps inside the Afghanistan border is appalling.

In some places conditions are deteriorating rapidly, with cases of malnutrition and

disease on the rise because essential, life-saving conditions such as access to food,

clean water and medicines cannot be provided. Camps in Pakistan are inadequate;

new sites do not meet standards of safety nor allow conditions for life with dignity.

Neighbouring countries, particularly Pakistan and Iran, have been generous in

hosting millions of Afghan refugees in recent years, but these countries have now

stated that it is against their national interests to open their borders. While their

concerns may be valid, it is clearly their responsibility, with sufficient financial and

institutional backing from the international community, to ensure that refugees are

granted due protection and assistance.

Oxfam fears that the growing tensions around refugees are leading to an environment in which measures may be taken to round up and return refugees to Afghanistan. If refugees were to be turned away at the borders and pushed back into Afghanistan, where their lives are in danger, this would amount to refoulement—

forced repatriation—and would contravene the 1951 Refugee Convention. Nearly all

the countries in the region have signed and ratified this document, which has acquired the force of a customary international law over all countries.

The breakdown of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law

inside Afghanistan, and the collapse of the international refugee asylum system in

the region, amount to a profound failure by the international community to uphold

those measures introduced in the aftermath of the Second World War to ensure that

massive abuses of human rights would never be allowed to happen again. The failure of the coalition governments to campaign sufficiently for the protection of civilians inside Afghanistan and the opening of borders to provide asylum for legitimate

refugees in neighbouring states is a particularly alarming aspect of the current crisis.

There are immediate steps that can be taken to diminish the obstacles and fears

faced by neighbouring states. Arguments to keep the borders shut could be more

easily countered if a proper system of refugee status determination was in place,

with refugee camps located at a suitable distance from international borders, and

with an assurance of their civilian nature guaranteed by the host countries and the

UNHCR. To meet the financial burden of this crisis, donors must provide prompt

and adequate funding and institutional support for host governments. These pledges

must be quickly fulfilled, since these countries are already among the poorest in the

world, and facing the same devastating three-year drought as Afghanistan.

Oxfam is therefore calling for:

1. States neighbouring Afghanistan to open their borders to refugees without

further delay. Neighbouring states should remove all obstacles to granting immediate protection and assistance to all those fleeing Afghanistan. This must

include the agreement to respect the principle of non-refoulement. Protection

would also include the establishment of secure and habitable living areas

(camps), with adequate provision of shelter, food, water and sanitation, health

102

1The Sphere standards establish a set of universal minimum standards in core areas of humanitarian assistance. They are ascribed to by most major humanitarian agencies, and are endorsed by ICRC, InterAction, VOICE and ICVA.

care, and other basic necessities according to recognised minimum standards

(e.g. Spheres 1). Given the time it is taking to establish a proper system of refugee status determination, temporary protection should be granted, but only as

a very interim measure that does not impede people from seeking full refugee

status.

2. The international community, the United Nations and the U.S.- and UKled coalition must make clear and public statements in favour of open borders.

Insufficient pressure and incentives have been applied to countries in the region

to address the refugee situation seriously. Coalition governments have a particular role to play in ensuring that humanitarian law is upheld, and that diplomatic efforts in the region include explicit agreements on addressing the needs

and rights of refugees.

3. Neighbouring states should provide secure access for impartial humanitarian agencies to refugee camps and should themselves offer whatever assistance they can. This is likely to be the only way in which the welfare of refugees

can be assured. Measures should be taken to preserve the civilian nature of the

camps, such as providing policing, ensuring camps are at an adequate distance

from any military zone, and preventing camps being used to recruit refugees

into militia.

4. Donor countries must ensure adequate funding. While pledges for the Afghanistan appeal have been high, donors must deliver the cash as soon as possible in order to reassure host countries that the financial burden of humanitarian support is indeed being shared among donor and host countries. Early

pledges will also increase flexibility in the delivery of relief into Afghanistan

and throughout the region. Funding should be sustained for the medium- to

long-term, supporting development projects in the host countries as well.

5. UNHCR must fulfil its protection mandate. In this charged climate, the

UNHCR must strongly denounce any moves to repatriate refugees forcibly. In

addition, the UNHCR’s own guidelines and standards for the protection of

women should be implemented. Humanitarian agencies should deploy women in

their planning and front-line staff, so that access to refugee girls and women

is increased.

6. Human rights and protection observers should be deployed. Staff of the

UN’s Human Rights Commission should be engaged in any assistance situation,

whether inside Afghanistan or in neighbouring countries. They would play an

important role as witnesses of, and deterrents for, further abuses. They could

also address specific concerns relating to gender violence and dislocation. International donors should contribute specifically to this purpose.

CONDITIONS FACED BY REFUGEES FLEEING AFGHANISTAN

Afghanistan

There are rising health concerns at the makeshift camp in Spin Boldak (near the

Chaman crossing, but inside Afghanistan and under Taliban control). For example,

there have been increasing cases of malnutrition and dysentery among children. According to the UNHCR, the camp’s population is about 3000 people, or some 700

families. At least 100 families are reported to be sleeping in the open without any

shelter or aid.

Pakistan

Up to 100,000 people are thought to have entered Pakistan through Baluchistan

and the North West Frontier Province since 11 September, even though the border

has remained officially closed except for ‘‘exceptionally vulnerable’’ persons. Even so,

it is believed that an average of 2500 Afghans a day cross the border. According

to the UNHCR, an estimated 135,000 refugees have fled to Pakistan between 11

September and 7 November in spite of the dangers, restrictions, and costs of this

journey. Many of these people are described by the Pakistan authorities as ‘‘invisible,’’ blending in with established refugee communities in the hope of not being deported.

There are clearly not enough camps in place to receive, process, and assist populations in need. Killi Faizo staging camp in Pakistan, near the Chaman border, currently holds some 2400 people and, according to the UN, is over-capacity. The site

was filled and further registration closed in just over a week after opening. Longerterm refugee camps have still not been properly established. Conditions in those

103

areas designated as camp sites will almost certainly be extraordinarily harsh and

inhospitable.

Iran

Iran has not opened its borders, even though it is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee

Convention. Instead, it has offered to assist displaced people on the Afghan side of

the border through the Iranian Red Crescent Society. This decision removes any recourse for refugees to international legal protection.

Tens of thousands of desperate refugees have reportedly crossed illegally into

Iran, many having paid smugglers for their passage. The border with Afghanistan

is heavily mined and the risks of death or injury from landmine explosions are very

real. Records from visiting medical teams, cited in the UK’s national Guardian

newspaper on 6 November, indicate that 43,000 refugees have arrived in the country since 11 September, although authorities suggest that the number could be closer to 60,000.

There are currently two established camps near the Iranian border, inside Afghanistan. NGOs have only restricted access to Makaki camp, which receives 900–

1000 new arrivals each day. It currently hosts some 7000 refugees. A second camp,

‘‘Mile 46,’’ hosts some 144 families, despite the fact that there is very little food or

water in the area. Iran provides electricity and a small clinic to test for communicable diseases, such as malaria, cholera, and TB. These camps have filled very

quickly since opening.

The Iranian authorities are considering opening a third camp at Pashmakeh.

However, conditions here might be even worse than at the other two camps, with

particular concerns about water.

Turkmenistan

There are mixed groups of combatants and civilians living in difficult conditions

along Turkmenistan’s border with Afghanistan. Screening and disarmament would

be necessary in order to provide protection to civilians. The border is officially closed

to people wishing to enter the country. Importantly, the government of

Turkmenistan has agreed to facilitate visas for foreigners working with Afghans

across the border, but has expressly forbidden emergency work with newly arrived

refugees.

Uzbekistan

Uzbekistan hosts approximately 30,000 Tajik refugees, but very few Afghan refugees. It is unlikely to see a large number of refugees at its small border with Afghanistan. However, the government has agreed actively to facilitate cross-border

assistance. It has also allowed the establishment of a forward UN logistics base on

the border at Termez.

Tajikistan

Tajikistan hosts some 5000 officially registered refugees. The borders to

Tajikistan are open for humanitarian access but not for general population movement. There are an estimated 10–15,000 Afghan refugees living on islands in the

Pyandzh River which separates the two countries. The Taliban front line is about

one mile from some of these islands, and combatants have not been separated from

genuine refugees. Conditions on these islands are poor, with limited access to water

and a great need for clothing and shoes for children. Last winter many refugees died

of hypothermia, malnutrition, and disease.

Æ