Report Faults U.S., Saying Its International Aid Isn't Always Apolitical

UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 19 -- The United States, the world's largest international aid donor, is among the worst at promoting the independence, impartiality and neutrality of humanitarian aid deliveries to needy populations, according to a survey by a Madrid-based nonprofit group that monitors donors' performance.

The Development Assistance Research Associates (DARA) Humanitarian Response Index 2008 measures how effectively the world's 23 largest donors deliver aid. The United States ranked 15th in overall effectiveness and 13th in the level of generosity measured by the size of its economy.

It ranked near the bottom in adherence to principles and guidelines established in 2005 by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development -- which includes the United States and other industrialized powers -- to ensure that political considerations do not exclude worthy recipients of aid.

DARA's findings reflect what it called the United States' use of humanitarian assistance to achieve military or political goals in eight crisis zones the group studied, including Afghanistan, Colombia and the Palestinian territories. The assessment challenges the United States' view of itself "as the paragon of global compassion," Larry Minear, a retired professor at Tufts University, wrote in the report.

DARA's report is based on interviews with more than 350 humanitarian aid agencies in 11 crisis areas. Sweden, Norway and Denmark were the highest performers, while Italy, France, Austria, Portugal and Greece received the lowest marks. The index measures donors' performance on the basis of 58 indicators -- from generosity to a commitment to long-term assistance to destitute groups.

The United States ranked relatively high on its ability to respond rapidly to requests for funding and its capacity to monitor how those programs function.

The United States and other aid donors have criticized DARA's index, saying it fails to appreciate the importance of the military's role in allowing relief work in trouble spots.

"What is the problem? It is to save the people that you can," said France's U.N. ambassador, Jean-Maurice Ripert, responding to criticism that his government has used aid to support its political ally Chad. "We are close to the Chadian government, and there is no shame in it."

In a statement, the U.S. Agency for International Development raised unspecified concerns about the reliability of the researchers' data and the methodology they used to reach their conclusions.

The DARA findings echo concerns by aid workers that U.S. strategy subordinates humanitarian considerations to military objectives. During the past decade, the Pentagon's share of the U.S. overseas development-assistance budget has grown from 3.5 percent to 18 percent, said George Rupp, president of the International Rescue Committee.

For instance, the United States and its NATO partners channel much of their aid in Afghanistan through provincial reconstruction teams, which oversee military and civilian activities in the country's conflict zones. The report said such activities have blurred the line between civilian and military actions, threatening to expose humanitarian aid workers to attacks by Taliban fighters.

In Colombia, which has more than 4 million internally displaced people, aid is often used by the United States and other donors to support the government's political and military priorities. Rupp said his organization has refused to participate in U.S.-funded programs in Afghanistan and Colombia because it is difficult to "observe our principle of impartiality."

"It puts you so clearly on one side of the divide," he said.