New release: The work of international institutions in the Gaza Strip, between politicisation and impartiality

Omar Shaban*

In the wake of the Hamas movement's victory in the legislative elections held in January 2006, its formation of the government in March of the same year and its taking sole control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007, the relationship of the international organisations working in the Strip with Palestinian society and with the Hamas government in Gaza entered a new phase, because these institutions adopted the same position taken by most Western states, which is summed up in not dealing with Hamas, its government and all the institutions related to it whether closely or distantly. Since that time the relationship between the international institutions working there has witnessed severe tension and tugging, in an attempt by the two parties to the relationship to measure the strength of the other party, with each party trying to use the points of strength it possesses. The government in Gaza rests on the fact that it is the ruler in the Gaza Strip and the guardian of people's interests, which requires everyone working under its control to coordinate with it and abide by its laws; while the other party, the international institutions, bases its position on Palestinian society's need for its services, especially after the siege and the war on the Gaza Strip. The tension in the relationship between the two parties has escalated in the recent period after the institutions department at the Ministry of the Interior in Gaza asked these institutions to register themselves with the institutions department and to open their offices to auditing by auditors belonging to the Ministry of the Interior in Gaza. The reaction of the international institutions to these demands ranged between absolute refusal and the search for middle-ground solutions, which drove some of them to halt their work. Given the importance of the issue, several proposals have been circulated to defuse the crisis — for example, commissioning licensed audit firms recognised internationally and locally as a third party.

It may be useful here to recall some positions on this issue and from multiple perspectives, with the aim of enriching the discussion around it

– The international institutions are not of one type. There are international institutions that work in the humanitarian field without any political constraints, and thereby express genuine solidarity with the peoples that need their services, while others comply entirely with the funder's policy even if they are not themselves convinced of it. Palestinian society therefore looks with every appreciation upon the many international institutions that have contributed distinguishedly to alleviating its suffering and to defending its cause locally and internationally.

– It may be understandable that the Western governments hastened to halt their funding of the government formed by the Hamas movement on the pretext of political conditions, taking into account that international governmental funding always serves political purposes. But it is not understandable that many international institutions hastened to take the same position as the international governments, given that they work in the field of relief and development.

– The number of international institutions working in the Gaza Strip swelled unprecedentedly after the siege and the war, in an attempt by some of them to benefit from the humanitarian crisis caused by the siege and the war on the Gaza Strip — especially on the part of institutions working in the field of relief, not out of a desire to serve the poor but in order to fund their staff and their offices around the world. The Gaza Strip has become a source of jobs with fantastical salaries and of funding for the consultancy and international relief industry, in what may be described as “they work off the poor and not for the poor”. The Palestinian division has constituted a golden opportunity for many international institutions, which have been relieved of official oversight amid weak popular oversight, and the crisis in the Strip has given them a golden opportunity to inflate their staffs.

– The crowding of many international institutions to work in the Gaza Strip, most of which lack a strategic vision and whose work is largely concentrated on distributing emergency assistance of temporary usefulness, has created a sickly state of dependence and reliance and spread an atmosphere of idleness and begging, in a way that destroys the reserves of strength in Palestinian society and limits self-reliant solidarity and cohesion.

– Many believe that it is the duty of any government, regardless of one's position on it, to monitor the work of the international institutions working in the territory it controls, based on the premise that there is no state in the world that allows any international or national institution to work on its territory without being registered and without submitting periodic reports to it. The international institutions working in Somalia, Iraq, Thailand, Britain and Sweden coordinate with the government regardless of the political programme of the ruling party.

– The government in Gaza receives many complaints from citizens pointing to unprecedented levels of corruption practised by some international institutions, whether in employment, in the choice of partners or in the choice of beneficiaries. The government in Gaza therefore feels that it is its duty to regulate the work of the international and civil institutions operating in the Gaza Strip and to combat manifestations of financial, moral and political corruption.

– The government in Gaza finds no logical, non-political reason for the international institutions to refuse to register themselves and to open their doors to auditing, especially if they are confident of the soundness of their programmes and the transparency of their work.

– Many in Palestinian society feel severe anger at the conduct of many international institutions and their employees, who deal with the target groups with great haughtiness and arrogance and practise an evident degradation of the dignity of the poor and a violation of their privacy through exhausting questionnaires that enquire into the details of their private lives, and by forcing them to wait for long hours and in utterly inhuman conditions — which is entirely contrary to the principles and foundations of ethical humanitarian work.

– Studies have proved that most international funding goes to the benefit of the international institutions themselves in the form of salaries, huge bonuses and the funding of luxury expenses such as expensive cars, the renting of high-cost apartments and dinner tables at upmarket hotels, so that nothing remains for Palestinian society but the crumbs. Palestinian society does not benefit from more than 20% of the volume of allocated funding, while the remaining proportion goes to the international institutions themselves. The Christian Science Monitor magazine published two days ago, in the context of talk about the Egyptian government conducting an investigation into Egyptian political parties and civil-society organisations receiving American funds, that 85% of democracy assistance to Egypt went to American institutions, that is, what was spent in Egypt does not exceed 15%.

– The government in Gaza believes that auditing the programmes of the international institutions will bring it many benefits, among them preventing the manipulation practised by some partner civil institutions. There is much evidence of widespread cases of corruption in some civil institutions that practise lying and falsification towards the international institutions and submit to them fictitious reports about programmes that were not implemented as required.

– Citizens expect the government in Gaza, regardless of their position on it, to do what is required of it as a ruler — such as paving roads, building schools, maintaining security and other sovereign services that any government must perform, whether it is David Cameron's government in Britain or the government of al-Shabab al-Islami in Somalia. And since the international institutions use these various services and the infrastructure, they must therefore genuinely contribute to improving and developing them.

– Many in the Gaza Strip believe that these measures applied by the government in Gaza are carried out selectively, so that they do not include within their scope the Arab and Islamic international institutions working in the Gaza Strip, nor even those local institutions that have some relationship with the government in Gaza.

In the end, the government in Gaza must take into account the need of many of our people in the Gaza Strip for the services of these institutions, and work to provide suitable conditions for them and to treat all the institutions working in the Gaza Strip equally. On the other side, the international institutions, if they are sincere in their claim that they are present in the Gaza Strip to serve the poor and the needy, must keep away from politicisation and raise the levels of transparency in implementing their programmes. And here comes the role of the civil-society organisations that are connected to people's interests, and not those that swim in the honey of international funding, in creating popular bodies to monitor the work of the international institutions and to follow up the extent of their commitment to the principles of transparency, integrity and the law.

I conclude with an innocent question to the international institutions:-

When will the international institutions lift the ban on dealing with the Gaza government! And what would the position of the international institutions be if the Quartet, by some miracle, decided to deal with the Gaza government tomorrow … would the international institutions recognise it too? Then we would be entitled to say that the international institutions are a member of the international Quartet as well.

*Founder and director of Pal-Think for Strategic Studies in Gaza

www.palthink.org
omar@palthink.org