|
 The May 23-24 gathering in Istanbul represents a missed opportunity
in that it will only voluntary commitments from governments and aid
agencies to improve emergency response and reduce humanitarian
needs, MSF said on Thursday.
"We no longer have any hope that the World Humanitarian Summit will
address the weaknesses in humanitarian action and emergency
response, particularly in conflict areas or epidemic situations,"
said the international medical charity, also known as Doctors
Without Borders.
"The summit neglects to reinforce the obligations of states to
uphold and implement the humanitarian and refugee laws which they
have signed up to," it said in a statement.
On Tuesday, MSF slammed four of the five permanent members of the
United Nations Security Council for ties to attacks on hospitals in
Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan as the council demanded an end to such
strikes.
Sandrine Tiller, MSF UK program advisor on humanitarian issues, said
U.N. organizers of the summit had "let states off the hook" by
asking only that they make non-binding commitments, putting them on
the same level as less powerful non-governmental organizations and
U.N. agencies.
"As shocking violations of international humanitarian law and
refugee rights continue on a daily basis ... participants will be
pressed to a consensus on non-specific, good intentions to 'uphold
norms' and 'end needs'," the MSF statement said.
"The summit has become a fig-leaf of good intentions, allowing these
systematic violations, by states above all, to be ignored."
Herve Verhoosel, spokesman for the World Humanitarian Summit, which
is led by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (OCHA), said MSF's decision was "disappointing".
The summit is an opportunity to call for greater political will to
prevent and end conflict, push for International Humanitarian Law to
be implemented, protect civilians and health workers, and gain
unimpeded humanitarian access, he said.
"These are all vital subjects on which MSF traditionally presents a
strong and influential voice," he added.
GOVERNMENTS STAYING AWAY?
The withdrawal of MSF, which took part in extensive consultations
leading up to the summit, adds to doubts about the meeting's impact.
[to top of second column] |
Questions have been raised about the level of government interest.
Earlier this week, the head of OCHA, Stephen O'Brien, told media 80
countries out of around 195 U.N. member states had said they would
participate so far, with 45 of those sending heads of government.
Verhoosel said the number of countries attending is rising daily,
with an expectation it will reach around 120.
MSF's Tiller told the Thomson Reuters Foundation the summit had been
organized in "quite a shambolic way". She said it was putting too
much emphasis on how to reduce aid needs through longer-term
solutions rather than dealing better with urgent crises, such as the
millions displaced by the war in Syria.
There was a sense that the humanitarian summit "is looking in the
other direction, towards development issues, and not focusing on the
real emergencies on the doorstep", she added.
Christina Bennett, a research fellow with the London-based Overseas
Development Institute, said MSF's no-show at the summit should act
as a catalyst for other humanitarian groups to push for stronger
commitments from states to respect the laws of war, as well as other
reforms they want to see.
There should also be a clear process for making sure promises made
at the conference are kept, Bennett said.
"Hope is not a strategy," she added.
(Reporting by Megan Rowling; editing by Katie Nguyen. Please credit
the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson
Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, women's rights, trafficking,
corruption and climate change. Visit http://news.trust.org)
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
