Happy to help refugees, but how?

Arne Perras, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, Munich, Germany

Seldom were refugee workers so helpless. They cannot enter Afghanistan, and even an eventual ceasefire would hardly make it any easier to care for the refugees.

Interrupting the war would not guarantee that larger aid convoys could be dispatched. Who is supposed to protect them militarily? Anything brought into the country would be easy prey for the Taliban. Giving them a shot in the arm cannot be the task of humanitarian organizations.

In Afghanistan the refugee aid community is facing one of its biggest tasks since 1945. Beyond that, the humanitarian operation is an equation with (too) many unknowns.

How long will the war against the Taliban last? Will it topple them, or only weaken them? Just how many suffering Afghans are in need of help: Five, seven, eight million?

Honest people will recall that three to five million Afghans were already in dire need of assistance prior to Sept. 11, due to drought and war. But part of the truth is that the fight against the Taliban is exacerbating the humanitarian plight of the civilian population -- at least until moderately stable conditions are established.

The bitter premonition creeping over many aid workers is that a large part of the civilian population will no longer be reachable before winter sets in. The aid drip can only be set up in those smaller parts of the country where the Northern Alliance -- in other words, the anti-Taliban forces -- has the say.

Care packages from the sky? Such projects have a shot at success only if distribution is organized and monitored. But contact between aid workers and their host country employees has collapsed in many places.

The UNHCR is all too familiar with the constraints. Faced with this quandary, High Commissioner Ruud Lubbers rightly concluded: "If we can't get to them, then they'll just have to get to us" -- meaning crossing the border, especially into Iran and Pakistan. Those countries may not seal their borders.

This is particularly true for Pakistan, where pressure on the border is most likely to be strongest. Islamabad, however, is set against opening the border -- and the reasons for the government's stance deserve to be taken seriously.

The exodus from Afghanistan brings financial burdens and carries risks for security and stability. Nevertheless: If the West is serious about refugee aid it will have to push much harder for Pakistan to change its border policy.

That is not to be had for free. The international community must convince Pakistan that it will shoulder the costs of the flood of refugees. The UNHCR has called for US$50 million for the first phase: A modest sum. That the UN agency still lacks a few million of this is embarrassing.

One of the most difficult tasks is still ahead. As soon as the refugees stream towards Pakistan the issue will become one of preventing armed militias from infiltrating the country. The refugee aid workers need the Pakistani military for that.

Security forces must monitor the new camps. In this area, too, the world must provide support, whether financial or on its own, by placing armed UN units alongside Pakistani troops. Otherwise a scenario similar to what took place in Rwanda in 1994 could develop.

Then, militant Hutus used refugee camps as hide-outs and retreats. A Talibanization in Pakistan, however, would be a disaster.