Update: Humanitarian Assistance to the People of Afghanistan

10:07 A.M. EST

MR. KRECZKO: The humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, as most of you know, predated the September 11 terrorist attack on the United States. It's been a result of a combination of years of civil war, of a prolonged drought, now entering its fourth year, and repressive Taliban policies.

And so last year the U.N. was estimating that as many as 5 million Afghans were at risk and in need of international assistance. The United States has consistently been the largest donor to the humanitarian relief effort in Afghanistan, and prior to September 11th, the United States had donated $180 million of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, over half of the humanitarian assistance going into Afghanistan.

Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, President Bush announced a major initiative dedicating $320 million of additional humanitarian assistance to help Afghans get through the winter. Some people have commented on the uniqueness of a country both launching a military action and at the same time launching a major humanitarian initiative, and President Bush explained, when he announced the initiative, that the U.S.-led coalition was directed against the terrorists and those who supported them, but not against the Afghan people, for whom we had great compassion because of their suffering.

And to that end, he directed this humanitarian initiative.

The first priority for the international community has been to get the maximum amount of assistance inside Afghanistan, so that people did not have to leave Afghanistan for neighboring countries, and so that people who were too weak to move would get assistance. In the last several weeks, we have been working every possible way to get additional assistance into Afghanistan, including overland by trucks, through the air, and we're even looking at the possibility of moving food by barge from Uzbekistan to Afghanistan. We're getting great cooperation from the neighboring countries of Afghanistan, and we're moving assistance in from all of the neighbors, including Pakistan, Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and, as I said, we're now discussing with the government of Uzbekistan moving assistance across that border, as well, with the government of Uzbekistan saying that provided security arrangements can be worked out on the other side, the barges can begin to move in November.

The result of all of this is that in October, working with the World Food Program, we were able to bring more food into Afghanistan than in any prior month. So the humanitarian effort is succeeding.

The main challenge has been internal distribution, meaning once you get the assistance inside Afghanistan, how do you get it to the people who are most needy. And there, we've been confronted with the problem that the expatriate staff of non-governmental organizations left Afghanistan -- many of them before September 11th, when the Taliban arrested some of the NGO expatriate workers. But we've been relying on local Afghan staff, who have a long history of providing assistance inside Afghanistan, to get the assistance out.

The main challenge to the internal distribution has been Taliban interference with the assistance and the breakdown of law and order in many parts of Afghanistan. We've had cases of the Taliban seizing vehicles from non-governmental organizations, occupying the offices of relief organizations, in some cases beating the staff of either the U.N. or local NGOs, and to forbidding the communications -- satellite communications -- between the local staff and the expatriates stationed in neighboring countries. The U.N. has reported that it has lost more than 100 vehicles over the past month, and earlier this week, the U.N. Security Council called for the Taliban to stop its interference in the delivery of humanitarian assistance.

So the United States, along with a large number of other countries, working very hard to increase assistance into Afghanistan, but apart from the normal logistic challenges which go up during the winter, we face this added complication of the Taliban interfering with the delivery of assistance and with the breakdown of law and order in the area.

While the United States has taken the lead, with the president dedicating $320 million to the effort, over 40 other countries have come forward and pledged humanitarian assistance, as well. And the total pledged is in the vicinity of $800 million, which is a great international response to the humanitarian crisis.

As I said, our primary objective has been to get assistance into Afghanistan so that people do not have to leave, but we are also working with neighboring countries to prepare for the potential of refugee flows. At the beginning there was an estimate that we might face as many as a million and a half new refugees trying to get into Pakistan and Iran, primarily -- to a lesser extent, the north central -- the Central Asian countries on Afghanistan's northern border. We have not seen population flows to the border in those large numbers. There have virtually been none to the Central Asian countries. There have been several thousand toward Iran. There have been, according to UNHCR, about 135,000 that have entered into Pakistan.

So those are the primary humanitarian challenges that we face. First and foremost getting assistance into Afghanistan. And as I say, the World Food Program announced that it got more into Afghanistan in October than in any previous month, and the United States is the biggest contributor to that effort. And then secondarily, helping neighboring countries to prepare for the possible refugee flows.

So that's my introductory statement. I'd be happy to try to answer questions. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Questions?

Q My name is Ivan Lebedev from the Russian News Agency TASS, and my question is about the humanitarian assistance coming from -- across the border from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Would it be correct to say that this part of the humanitarian assistance will be provided primarily to the Afghans living in the regions that are under control of the Northern Alliance? And the second question is, what kind of humanitarian assistance are you going to provide by barges coming across the border between Uzbekistan and Afghanistan? Thank you.

MR. KRECZKO: On the first part of your question, the assistance coming from Tajikistan would primarily go into the northeastern part of Afghanistan, and that is the Northern Alliance-controlled area. The U.N. recently sent a security team into the northeast to look at the situation there, and expatriate humanitarian workers have started going back to the northeast. And I think what this demonstrates is that where the Taliban is not present, the humanitarian operations can proceed fairly easily. So yes, the assistance from Tajikistan is going into primarily those areas controlled by the Northern Alliance.

When we can begin to move assistance from Uzbekistan, it will go into the northern and north-central area. And that is a mixed area right now. Part of it is controlled by the Taliban, and in fact, the immediate border area is controlled by the Taliban. So the U.N. needs to get an assurance that if it moves the barge across the river, when it gets to the other side of the river, the Taliban is not going to interfere with it. But Uzbekistan has said that from its side, it is okay for it to move.

So there is Taliban-controlled area there; there is also Northern Alliance-controlled area, and then there is also contested and area where the fighting is going on. That is some of the most vulnerable areas in Afghanistan in terms of famine-impacted area. So it is very, very important to open up that corridor. But as I say, the most critical element there is getting some kind of reliable assurance from the Taliban that they will not interfere with that assistance.

In terms of what type of assistance, I know that both WFP, the World Food Program, and UNICEF, are prepositioning materials at Termez, which is near the border in Uzbekistan, and that will include food and, I'm sure, children's clothing and things like that.

Q My name is Randy Foby (sp) with Reuters. You mentioned security problems with the food-aid agencies. I'm just wondering if there is any discussions with NATO or U.S. military forces or with allied forces, to assist the international staffs to come back into Afghanistan and help the situation and distribute the food and other necessities to those that need it. And if not, why not?

MR. KRECZKO: I think that the humanitarian community is not seeking that type of support from the military. And in part, it's driven by a concern that if they are too closely associated with the military's activities, they will lose their impartiality and neutrality.

So the humanitarian community is, instead, trying to get assurances from the Taliban that the Taliban will not interfere with their activities.

The problem is that in area after area, we are seeing that break down. And as I mentioned, we're seeing the Taliban step in and loot the -- particularly the vehicles and the communications equipment of the nongovernmental organizations, or to seize the offices of the relief agencies, and in a few cases, actually harass, intimidate and beat the local staff of the relief communities.

Q My name is Yoichi Mishida (sp); I'm the correspondent of the Japanese daily newspaper called the Sankei.

My question is: Could you kindly tell us why you have seen less population movement than you expected?

MR. KRECZKO: A number of reasons have been suggested for that. One is that we have been able to get assistance into Afghanistan and, therefore, there has been less need for people to leave. And from a relief perspective, it is far, far better to feed people where they are than to have them leave, because if they get up to try to leave, particularly in difficult terrain, they'll die trying to get to someplace where they can get relief. So I think that's one explanation.

The second is that the -- there are reports that the Taliban is interfering with the departure of people. There were reports that, in particular, men were being prevented from leaving, and they were being forced into the army. I even saw a report yesterday that the Taliban were shooting some refugees that were trying to leave. So that's another possible explanation.

The third is that the fighting and, in particular, the U.S. military campaign, has been more precise than some have expected. And then, the other explanation that people have given is that the borders of the neighboring countries are officially closed, so the welcome mat is not really out for these people. As a practical matter, a large number of them have been able to get into Pakistan. But Pakistan's official position is that the border is closed.

So I think if you take all four of those factors in some combination -- and I'm sure it varies from person to person inside Afghanistan -- those are potential reasons that we haven't seen refugee flows as great as we initially anticipated.

MODERATOR: Yeah, with Reuters.

Q I just wanted to confirm that with winter setting in in the next two or three weeks, there are no plans right now for -- are being discussed or negotiated for U.S. military ground troops or just or NATO to assist the distribution of food on the ground?

MR. KRECZKO: Well, I think the thing that is being looked at first is the possibility of the World Food Program airlifting food in. And when you talk about winter coming in, you have to distinguish among the regions in Afghanistan. Some regions in Afghanistan will remain easily accessible, notwithstanding the winter. But there are some areas, particularly in this -- the Hazarajat region in the central highlands, that could become inaccessible, and there the possibility of an airlift of food is being looked at. I don't want to rule out that the military would do it, but I think priority that's being looked at right now is civilian.

Q (Off mike.)

MR. KRECZKO: "Civilian" meaning through the World Food Program.

Q Civilian help? Is that --

MR. KRECZKO: A civilian airlift of food.

Q Civilian -- oh.

MR. KRECZKO: Yeah.

Q So is that going to be the primary means of getting food to them, then? Is that kind of the strategy?

MR. KRECZKO: Well, I'd say we've got several strategies. The first strategy is overland by truck, because that is the most efficient way to move large quantities of food. And the hope is that enough food can be moved in and pre-positioned in these areas that it does not become a problem in the winter. The -- we're also supporting World Food Program in its efforts to buy snowplows, so that the roads can be kept open longer that would ordinarily be the case.

If the food cannot be pre-positioned, or if it cannot be gotten in overland because of the snow, then I think the option that it has looked at is either airdrops, if the planes cannot land for some reason, or airlift, if planes can land.

Q I'd like to follow up on the -- on what you said. Either airdrops or airlifting, meaning airlifting from outside Afghanistan to inside Afghanistan? Do you mean that?

MR. KRECZKO: Right. Right. I know that the World Food Program is looking at the possibility of flying into an area like the Hazarajat from, say, Turkmenistan and bringing food in.

I think they're also looking at the possibility of flying food in from Pakistan or Tajikistan to Faizabad in the northeast. So those are possibilities. As I say, the preferable way to bring the food in is by truck because it's far, far more efficient. The airlift is quite expensive. So if they can get it in by truck, that's the preferred route.

Q I guess there's some -- I'm a bit confused on -- since the United States is already dropping food from airplanes and food rations, and then there is this -- aid agencies don't want U.S. military help because they wanted to show that their still independent and not -- I'm just seeing, you know, two different things. And why -- if U.S. is already dropping food to help the Afghans, why don't they just assist aid agencies also and just do a full-out -- help on this front instead of just kind of doing half?

MR. KRECZKO: Right. The air drops that the military are doing are high-altitude drops that reach only a very, very small percentage of the need. It's an important effort, it's a visible effort. It's being done in the most inaccessible areas and those areas that are most in need of food, but it's a relatively small percentage of the food need overall. I think some people have estimated that it's about one percent of the people who need to get food assistance.

So there needs to be a much, much more massive food movement, and the United States is doing that in conjunction with other countries through the civilian humanitarian organizations. And I think everybody's preference is, where the civilians can do the job, the established institutions like the World Food Program and UNICEF ought to do the job. And so the -- in the first instance there, those agencies are trying to work through trucks. If it becomes secure enough for them to fly in civilian planes and air lift food, and they have to do that because the trucks can't reach, then they will do that, as well.

I think that the -- from the humanitarian perspective, they would look to the military in a situation where they can't do it for security reasons or logistics reasons.

Q Could you tell us about the feasibility of flying in the food aid -- food inside Afghanistan? For instance, could you secure airstrips during winter season?

And secondly, is there any significant difference in amount of food that you can airlift and -- you know, other than airdrops? Is there any significant difference between the two things?

MR. KRECZKO: Yes. Airlift is a much more efficient way to deliver food than airdrops. You can bring more in, and you can also have a higher degree of certainty that it gets to the beneficiary, the people who need it. If you drop from high altitude and it flutters out, it can be gotten by whoever gets to it first. In theory, if you could fly into a secure area and bring in a lot of food and you unload it there on the airstrip and you turn it over to the local people to distribute, you're getting a greater assurance that the food will get to the people who need it.

In terms of quantities, it is possible to deliver large quantities of food by air. The international community does it in Sudan, and has done it for years in Sudan. That requires a secure airspace, air location, airport, as you said, in order to land so that you can disburse the food. And I think that right now those conditions don't exist, with the possible exception of the northeastern part of Afghanistan.

Q You said that the flow of refugees across the border to the territories of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan after September 11 was actually close to zero. My understanding is that there was a number of refugees living in the camps, Afghan refugees, on the territory of Tajikistan before these events. I'm not sure about Uzbekistan. And the question is, was there any increase in the humanitarian assistance to the governments of Takistan and Uzbekistan after September 11 to deal with the refugee situation on their territories?

MR. KRECZKO: There are some Afghan refugees already in Tajikistan. They've been there for years. And frankly, I'm not sure of the extent to which they get assistance currently. Uzbekistan, I believe, has a much, much smaller number of Afghan refugees in it. There are, in addition, some Afghans that are right up at the border with Tajikistan, in the northeast of Afghanistan, and they are getting assistance right across the border through the nongovernmental organizations and the U.N. agencies.

Q On the border of the (Afghan territory ?); right?

MR. KRECZKO: Well, I'm not sure if -- there are islands on the river, and I'm not sure whether it is actually considered Tajikistan or Afghanistan. Some people say, you know, it's right up there in a debatable area. The numbers that I've seen are in the thousands, and they are getting some assistance from the relief community.

MODERATOR: More questions? Well, if not, I'd like to thank you, Alan, for another very good briefing.

MR. KRECZKO: Okay, thank you all. Thanks.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

END.

Copyright (c)2001 by Federal News Service, Inc., 620 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service, please email Jack Graeme at info@fnsg.com or call (202)824-0520.