I was in a conundrum. Do I exit my job or insist on staying? That was in 2004 and I was the UN chief in Sudan. The challenge arose from offending then president Omar Al Bashir’s government when I accused it of ethnic cleansing in Darfur.
The UN Human Rights Commission, European Parliament, donors, NGOs and media urged me to stay firm. But the Sudanese authorities threatened that unless I went, they would stop co-operation. Not just with me but with the entire UN presence in the country. At the time, we constituted the world’s biggest humanitarian operation providing lifesaving services across Africa’s largest territory.
A moment’s wrestling with my conscience made clear that no matter my principled stance, holding on to my position was just grandstanding. And futile because it meant desperately needy people held hostage in the struggle between the Sudanese leadership and my mission. So, my duty lay in leaving – having alerted the world to what was confirmed as genocide by the International Criminal Court.
I reflect on that experience because a comparable – though more complex – quandary confronts UNRWA, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees.
Israel wants to stop it operating following serious – although contested – allegations against the agency. An independent review in April concluded that Israel had not provided evidence to support its accusation that a significant number of UNRWA’s employees in the Gaza Strip were members of Hamas. But given the ensuing political gridlock, the question being asked is whether UNRWA should dig-in or depart?
UNRWA was formed by a 1949 UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution after the war that created Israel and displaced huge numbers of Palestinians. It focused on refugees defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict”. UNRWA’s remit was “to prevent conditions of starvation and distress” and further “conditions of peace and stability”.
It was a generous time. UNRWA’s budget was $33.7 million, equating to a staggering $45 billion in current purchasing value, for 750,000 displaced out of 1.4 million Palestinians at the time. It was also an optimistic moment, as UNRWA was seen as a temporary arrangement until mediation fixed the crisis and found a permanent solution for the Palestinians.
But Palestinian displacement swelled further with the 1967 Arab-Israel War and the intifadas of 1980s and 2000s. UNRWA’s challenges multiplied in tandem because of its rigid mandate born out of an inexperienced UN that was itself traumatised after the Second World War and Holocaust.
UNRWA is renewed periodically by UNGA without sufficient changes to reflect the world that has altered so much over 75 years.
Most of the people in UNRWA’s original caseload have passed away. But four generations on, its responsibilities have expanded to care for 5.9 million descendants of the males of the original cohort. A third of them live in 58 congested camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza and the West Bank.
Is this “genetic transmission” of refugee status an endowment or a burden? Originally intended to ensure that the Palestinian quest for a homeland is not forgotten, it amounts to a sentence of indefinite exile because geopolitics has not been kind to these people’s legitimate aspirations.
The tragic implication of Palestinian exceptionalism is that they have fewer rights than other refugees under the remit of the UN Refugee Agency, UNHCR – which is charged with finding durable solutions through voluntary refugee return or resettlement in third countries. But UNRWA is authorised only to sustain Palestinians in their limbo, however hard it works to provide them with education, health care and social safety nets.
Refugees everywhere tend to outlive their welcome. Palestinians in neighbouring states often have restricted movement and employment opportunities. Violent politicisation becomes likely with concentrated populations of disenfranchised Palestinians, their visibility feeding narratives of “states within states” and often provoking concern among host governments. Longstanding camps in Lebanon are centres of insecurity including cross-border conflict with Israel.
Under these circumstances, UNRWA provides not just basic support for Palestinians but also employment. Ninety-nine per cent of its 30,000 personnel are local. But this leads the agency to be accused of perpetuating an unacceptable situation while overreaching its remit by acting like a quasi-government.
It is unreasonable to scapegoat UNRWA for a situation not of its making. But it can be debated that the agency has allowed itself to be instrumentalised to sustain a status quo that the international community cannot remedy. In that context came October’s brutal attack in which Hamas killed and took hostage hundreds of Israelis, and the furious Israeli response that has destroyed much of Gaza, killed thousands and displaced most of its 2.2 million people. While the relative wrongs of the current war are angrily debated, UNRWA is caught in the middle.
In drawing attention to the destruction of its facilities-cum-shelters and vociferously advocating for better humanitarian access and protection, UNRWA has attracted the ire of Israel, which has withdrawn co-operation. Because the agency is the principal co-ordinator and relief provider for Gazans, this compounds their suffering.
UNRWA’s Gaza premises are alleged by Israel to hide Hamas military tunnels and paraphernalia. There is evidence for that but the extent of abuse of these premises is unclear. Some UNRWA personnel are also accused of participating in the October 7 attack. However, in a comprehensive review of the agency’s neutrality, the UN says Israel is yet to provide any proof of its allegations, raising doubts about validity of claims.
That said, the review of UNRWA neutrality mechanisms did find that the agency is inadequately managed to ensure reliable compliance with rigorous UN procedures. The agency responds that its neutral status is often violated by armed elements from both sides over which it has no control.
There is a wider complexity. The UN staff code – in the age of social media and right to free expression – places UNRWA staff in an almost-impossible position. What is humanly expected from aid workers who come from within dispossessed communities with the recognised right to self-determination as they witness the daily killing, maiming and displacing of their loved ones?
UNRWA has produced an action plan to correct organisational shortcomings. But will this be enough?
Although some of the $450 million funding withheld by donors has been resumed, the largest contributor, the US, which pledged a third of the $1.3 billion promised last year is staying away, as is the UK. Some others have imposed conditions and transferred support to other agencies such as the World Food Programme, Red Crescent and several NGOs that have courageously stepped up. It’s worth pointing out, however, that most EU countries that suspended aid have restored it, while Arab nations continue to support the agency.
Meanwhile, UN agencies including the World Health Organisation, Unicef and others are scaling-up despite the obstacles and risks faced by all humanitarians. In public, they profess solidarity with UNRWA and are keen not to undermine it by substituting or taking resources away from the beleaguered agency.
UNRWA is in the worst of all positions: suffering abuse while enduring a form of death by a thousand cuts. But it will survive because its demise can only be ordered by an UNGA that has already voted for Palestine, in the cause of which UNRWA has totemic significance.
A debate is raging within UNRWA corridors. They know that all aid givers operate at host authority discretion – in this case, Israel, as the occupying power in Palestine. That is resented, but it is the current reality. When the Gaza war ends, a new reality will emerge, to which the aid world must respond accordingly.
Meanwhile, in the here-and-now, all Gazans – and increasingly also 3.2 million West Bank residents – face incredible hardship. Relieving them of this hardship is the overriding duty of the international humanitarian system. But it is hindered from discharging this duty while a battle of wills rages between UNRWA and Israel.
The universal principles for humanity must be stood-up for – but not over the bodies of innocent people trapped in the struggle. As I realised earlier in Sudan, no individual or agency is higher than the cause they serve. Neither must they render themselves indispensable. Nor permit manipulation by polarising groups or ideologies using the Gaza carnage for geopolitical objectives.
That is the core of UNRWA’s dilemma. Do they exit the scene under Israeli pressure, even temporarily, if that improves access for others to potentially save more lives? Or do they stand firm even as their mandate shrinks and the misery of their clients accumulates?
