Thursday, August 19, 2010, marked the 7th anniversary of the bombing of the UN compound in Iraq in 2003. (For an account of the 2007 memorial service see “UN’s Iraq Bombing Survivors Hold Memorial Service”)

This bombing in 2003 resulted in the death of 22 UN staff members including the UN Special Representative for Iraq, Sergio Vierira de Mello.

This year, the UN headquarters in NYC scheduled a short memorial to mark the occasion. Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary General, lay a wreath in remembrance of those killed, followed by one minute of silence. The focus on this anniversary at UN headquarters, however, was on what is called World Humanitarian Day, a day marking the activities of humanitarian workers in general.

This was a change in focus from a day of reflection and memorial marking the 2003 loss of life and the importance of what this represents to the UN system to a more general focus. The change in focus was based on a General Assembly resolution in December 2008.

There may be reasons to have a day at the UN dedicated to considering the role of humanitarian workers. But why on August 19, the day previously set aside to mark the anniversary of the losses suffered in the attack on August 19, 2003?

The past effort at the UN to review the circumstances of the 2003 bombing led to important realizations. One of these was that there were those fighting the foreign occupation in Iraq in 2003 who no longer considered the UN to be a neutral entity. Yet if the UN is to have a legitimate function in the world, its obligation is to function as a neutral entity, a entity not considered to be aligned with occupying forces, an entity supporting the sovereignty of the nations where it sends its staff. The actions of the UN to support the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 represented the symptom of a general problem for the UN.

In 2010 this lesson continues as a significant issue for the UN to keep in focus. The UN has staff assigned to field work in nations around the world. Similar to 2003, it has staff in nations where there is contention about the role of occupiers, such as with the continuing US presence in Iraq, or the NATO presence in Afghanistan, as just two examples. Similarly, the US involvement in Pakistan, especially its drone killings has raised serious criticism in Pakistan and around the world. US military actions in Pakistan also affect the role played by the UN in Pakistan. Serious discussion about the implication for the role of the UN in such nations where there is a fight against foreign occupation or foreign intervention, however, is a discussion that one rarely hears officially considered at the UN.

The focus of the UN on August 19, as World Humanitarian Day this year, led to a fund raising event at the UN General Assembly for the Pakistan government’s effort to support those suffering from the flooding. As various member nations lined up to announce their government’s contributions to Pakistan, some mentioned the need to support the neutrality obligations of humanitarian aid. Others spoke about the need to support Pakistan against the danger of a natural disaster leading to internal rebellion. In general, however, the spokespeople from the various nations, as expected, were silent on the problem represented by the military role of the US in Pakistan and how that factor affected their nation’s humanitarian contributions.

A UN media advisory prepared to mark World Humanitarian Day, however, recognized the problem. The advisory stated:

“For many years aid workers have relied on acceptance of their neutrality and independence to ensure they can work anywhere, to help anyone in need. Increasingly, however, a misperception that humanitarian aid is delivered exclusively by Western organizations or is somehow influenced by specific ideological or religious world views is spreading…. The worst manifestation of this false perception is the escalating number of targeted attacks on humanitarian personnel; killing and injuring a growing number of aid workers every year.” (From UN media advisory “World Humanitarian Day 19 August 2010”)

The UN staff and related others who are out in the field doing the day to day work of the UN are those who find themselves the target of the attacks that result from not seriously considering the problem highlighted by the events of August 19, 2003. The impact of the UN’s failure represents a serious danger to the work of the UN. The August 19, 2003 attack was not only because of a perception of a lack of neutrality. As one of the staff members who was in Iraq at the time wrote later in an article in the British Guardian, the US was using the large UN staff contingent in Iraq in 2003 to “show the world that Iraq was safe enough and legitimate enough for other nations and organizations to support the occupation.” (See Salim Lone, “A Dangerous Acquience”, “Comment is Free” The Guardian, 20 August 2007)

In their presentations to the General Assembly on support for Pakistan’s flood relief, several nations of the G77 and China referred to the General Assembly Resolution 46/182 of December 19, 1991, the annex of which sets out the principles for humanitarian aid. These stress the need for respecting the principles of “humanity, neutrality and impartiality.”Also respecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity and national unity of States is listed as a serious requirement for humanitarian aid.

While the original purpose of setting aside August 19 to honor the UN staff killed on that day has became subordinated to other activities at the UN in 2010, the underlying problem for the UN remains ever more significant.

At noon on August 19, 2010 friends and family of the victims of the 2003 Iraq bombing gathered across the street from the UN at the UN Church Center building for a memorial service. As part of the service, the minister noted that like those who attended this memorial service, UN staff around the world would not allow August 19 to pass without holding memorials in honor of those who died. Such memorials make it possible for those who understand the importance of honoring this day to reflect on the lessons the events of August 19, 2003 represent for the future of the UN.