An Oct. 25, 2013 Op Ed from Secretary of State John Kerry calls the “systematic denial of medical assistance, food supplies, and other humanitarian aid” to the Syrian people an “intolerable” act. Kerry’s piece comes in response to the unabated denial of humanitarian access perpetrated by the Assad government, and exacerbated by the patchwork of opposition groups also blocking and diverting aid. Kerry echoes the UN’s call for “all parties to respect obligations under international humanitarian law,” and for the international community to join the U.S. in pressuring Assad and opposition forces to allow the unimpeded access of humanitarians to the wounded, sick and hungry.
Kerry’s comments come at a time when humanitarian access is diminishing globally and restrictions on humanitarian aid workers are increasing. His message is a laudable one that should be taken to heart, not just by Assad and Syrian opposition groups, but also by his own government.
U.S. laws aimed at preventing any money from getting into the hands of listed terrorists are so broad and inflexible that humanitarians risk running afoul of them when trying to access civilians in areas controlled by terrorist groups. While these laws are not nearly as harsh as the restrictions being implemented by the Assad regime, they represent an added barrier to the unimpeded access that Kerry calls for.
For example, the law that prohibits providing material support to terrorists has an exemption for medicine and religious materials. Medical services are not included. That means that doctors who treat injured people with associations to the al Nusra Front, which is on the terrorist list, are violating the law. While the Treasury Department has issued a General License to allow NGOs to engage with the Syrian government for the purpose of providing aid programs, no such license applies to engagement with non-state armed groups that are on the U.S. list. That means that aid decisions are not being made on the basis of need alone, as required by humanitarian principles. Instead, aid delivery decisions can be skewed by legal concerns.
That is not to say that the Assad regime has been cooperative. It has not. It must cooperate with aid groups and allow access. And U.S. law must be made consistent with humanitarian principles.
President Obama, during a High level Event at the General Assembly in October, did not mince his words when he remarked that “human progress has always been propelled at some level by what happens in civil society…” Nor did he when he chastised “a growing number of countries that are passing laws designed specifically to stifle civil society.”
But while this vocal support of civil society and humanitarian access from Obama and Kerry are welcome, they do little to placate the concerns of humanitarians on the ground. As a recent UN and Norwegian Refugee Council report points out, significant factors leading to the high death toll in the Somalia famine were both the presence of the terrorist group al-Shabaab and legal restrictions imposed by the U.S. government.
These issues were presented during Obama’s High Level UN panel, when UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson called out the “rise in laws that restrict the activities of human rights defenders” including “overreaching anti-terrorism and national security legislation.” Another panelist at the event, Doug Rutzen of the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law seconded these remarks, urging caution to “make sure our counterterrorism measures don’t undermine [promotion of civil society].”
In his Op Ed, Kerry says that “aid workers must have full access to do their jobs now.” That will require Assad and opposition groups to allow safe an uninhibited access to all civilians. But it will also require the U.S. to rethink its overbroad counterterrorism laws that put needless restrictions on charities. The U.S. has an opportunity to show the world that humanitarian access must be facilitated at all times, and it can start by make sure our own laws do just that.