The funeral for Delphine Douyere, 36, was held on Sunday, March 4, in Rio de Janeiro. She had been killed, along with her husband, Christian Doupes, 42, and a 38-year-old colleague, Jerome Faure, six days earlier near the beach. They all worked for a humanitarian organization, Terr'Ativa (meaning, more or less, "Active Earth"), which provides support for children and teenagers who live in the Rio slums. An accountant employed by Terr'Ativa had apparently stabbed the three aid workers to death -- with the help of two other men -- after he had been implicated in thefts from the organization.
Douyere, Doupes, and Faure had devoted their lives to helping poor people, including dozens of teenagers who attended their funeral. The deaths of these three individuals will be tallied by researchers who are tracking assaults on aid workers around the world, adding to a database that has grown dramatically in recent years. The authors of a briefing paper, "Providing Aid in Insecure Environments," published in September 2006 by the New York University Center on International Cooperation and the London-based Overseas Development Institute, say more than 430 humanitarian aid workers have been killed in different parts of the world since 1997. 2006 was "one of the deadliest" years.
Like many aid workers, Douyere, Doupes, and Faure, who were all French citizens, chose to work in a dangerous part of the world. They lived among the people they helped. It should come as no surprise that humanitarian workers, assisting people affected by war, poverty, crime, and natural disasters, are exposed to risk and are injured and killed in the line of duty. But the occupational hazards are more treacherous than one would think. The vast majority of aid workers who are killed are "deliberately targeted, rather than randomly exposed to violence as in crossfire or landmine explosions," according to the briefing paper.
There are different theories about why aid workers are targeted. Mary McClymont, head of InterAction, the largest alliance of U.S.-based international development and nongovernmental organizations, told me in an interview for the Ford Foundation Report that civilian workers in places like Afghanistan were placed in increased danger because of the blurring of lines between military personnel and civilian workers.
"American soldiers in Afghanistan were wearing civilian clothing, carrying guns, and undertaking humanitarian activities," she said, describing U.S. troops in Kabul and other parts of the country. "This led to confusion and impaired the ability of humanitarian workers to do their jobs. And, of course, it undermined their security."
But isn't it a good thing when soldiers help out? I asked her.
"Increasingly, we've seen the military engaged in efforts to win the hearts and minds of people," she said. "But you've got to have distinctions between the humanitarians and the military ... If you were a humanitarian worker in the past, you might have been in danger or even killed," she added. "But now humanitarian workers are being targeted."
She is not the only one who has discussed the problem of civilians being pursued for political reasons. "The increasing use of humanitarian aid as a political tool, and the use of militaries to provide humanitarian relief, jeopardizes the neutrality of the humanitarian imperatives to save lives and end suffering," said Matthew D. Emry, a senior program officer for the American Jewish World Service, in the September 25, 2006, edition of Monday Development, a newsletter published by InterAction. "It has also made it more difficult for those in need and for armed factions to discern between aid workers and political agents."
Some international aid experts say there is no data to support these claims. The September 2006 briefing paper, for example, concludes that the politicization of aid has made it seem as though there is a relationship between politics and violence, when in fact "there were no statistically significant correlations between aid worker violence and the following conflict variables: presence of great power (e.g. U.S.) military forces; presence of global terrorist cells; and use of the 'integrated mission' approach by the UN."
One thing is not controversial, however: The threat to aid workers is especially acute in Iraq. At least 82 individuals working for the United Nations and other non-governmental organizations have been murdered there since war began in March 2003, according to data provided by the NGO Coordination Committee in Iraq.
No wonder it has been difficult for State Department officials to find enough people to fill positions on the recently expanded Provincial Reconstruction Teams. There are now 10 teams -- with 20 people apiece -- working to help develop local governance and the economy. The Bush administration wants to double the number of teams, adding approximately 350 people to rosters.
Unlike aid workers in places like Brazil, these men and women have security. They are actually embedded with the U.S. military. Civilian workers can travel only in Stryker vehicles. It keeps them safer. But it is hard for Americans to speak freely with Iraqis under those conditions -- and even harder for them to work together on the agricultural, economic, and other key issues facing Iraq. As a method for rebuilding a country, it is a flawed approach.
The State Department got into a public feud with the Pentagon over who was going to fill the 350 positions. Pentagon officials eventually agreed to fill in the gaps-- at least temporarily. You can hardly blame the people at the State Department. It's a big problem over there in Iraq -- and not of their making.
Tara McKelvey is a Prospect senior editor.
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to The American Prospect here.
Support independent media with a tax-deductible donation here.
