Barriers to Charity

A disturbing pattern is emerging in the licensing process the Department of Treasury uses to allow or block humanitarian aid to civilians in conflict zones controlled by terrorist groups or state-sponsors of terrorism.  The maze of laws and regulations that govern such licenses lack any clear standards that incorporate humanitarian principles.   The result is a set of decisions that are inconsistent on humanitarian grounds and appear to be motivated by political or foreign policy considerations. 

How humanitarian principles are put into practice in the world’s most complicated or protracted crises is one of the major themes raised in an October 2012 report by the Norwegian Refugee Council and the Overseas Development Institute. Based on case studies conducted in Afghanistan, the DRC, Pakistan and South Sudan, Tools for the job: Supporting Principled Humanitarian Action examines the various restrictions and opportunities groups meeting the needs of vulnerable communities face while trying to adhere to the principles of humanity, impartiality, independence and neutrality. Recommendations include reforming “counterterrorism measures that encroach on humanitarian action,” and implementing safeguards to separate humanitarian assistance activity from any political or military agenda.

The disquieting trend of governments encroaching on the rights of civil society was discussed by a panel of experts at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars on Aug. 14, 2012. Front and center was the concern that oppressive dictatorial and near-dictatorial regimes across world are criminalizing freedom of assembly and speech, and imposing a morass of regulations aimed at stifling the work of nonprofits.

An article in the September 2011 issue of the International Review of the Red Cross identifies how humanitarian contact with listed terrorist groups for the purpose of reaching and protecting vulnerable civilian populations is prohibited by the United States and the United Nations Security Council.  Humanitarian engagement under counter-terrorism: a conflict of norms and the emerging policy landscape  argues that these prohibitions foster an environment where aid groups are fearful their humanitarian action will result in criminal prosecution or lead to closure of the organization. As a result, many have begun scaling back operations in places deemed too legally risky.

Political and military agendas have negatively affected the ability of aid groups to respond to the tremendous need in Somalia, says a comprehensive evaluation of humanitarian action in the country between 2005 to 2010. Produced by DARA, the report finds that anti-terror legislation and security-related policies have shrunk the space and capacity of humanitarian actors “to respond impartially and proportionately.” At the same time, these same polices have helped make Somalia one of the most dangerous environments for humanitarian operations. In 2008, nearly two-thirds of all aid workers fatalities around the world occurred in Somalia. More than two decades of conflict, combined with frequent natural disasters, have displaced millions of Somalis in recent years.

A small number of Minneapolis-area Somali money transfer shops have reopened amid heightened scrutiny from banks, reports the Minnesota Star Tribune on Jan. 25, 2012. Though the amount transferable is limited to $500, the services are the only means many Somali-Americans have available to send remittances to family living in Somalia, a country lacking a functioning government or banking system, and plagued by drought and civil strife for almost 20 years. The inability of nearly 70,000 Somalis that live in the state to send money home had drawn strong criticism from Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and other Minnesota legislators. At the end of December, the state's 14 Somali money transfer shops were shut down after the last Minnesota bank to wire money to Somalia closed their accounts.