This screening will be followed by a Q&A with director Nawal al-Maghafi and others.

Since March 2015, a coalition of the Middle East’s richest countries, led by Saudi Arabia, and armed by the UK and US has been bombing the region’s poorest state, Yemen.

While the bombing campaign has been receiving intermittent coverage in the international media, the enormous scale of the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Yemen as a result continues to be overlooked.

Today, more than twenty million Yemenis are relying on aid to survive. The coalition’s blockade of the country has previously cut off the food and aid imports on which the population depends, and while trade has now resumed they maintain complete control over all imports and exports to and from Yemen.

We meet Shuaib, he was rushed in to hospital suffering from fever and diarrhoea. Hodeida’s main hospital is already struggling to cope, working under airstrikes, electricity cuts and lack of supplies. Shuaib’s antibiotic is completely out of stock, and doctors do the best they can to save him with the little supplies that they have.

Through the eyes of Ashwaq Muharram, a medical doctor living and practicing in Hodeida, viewers will see the silent killer of this ongoing conflict: the blockade currently imposed by the Saudi-led coalition and the widespread bombing of infrastructure which is drastically disrupting civilians’ access to aid.

This critical film provides an insight into what is happening in Yemen beyond the bombs and the bullets. It will introduce the audience to Yemenis whose coping strategies have collapsed, and who are in desperate need of the world’s attention as a humanitarian catastrophe unfolds in their land.

Directed and Reported by: Nawal Al-Maghafi
Edit Producer: Karolina Mottram
Edited by: Shayma Alissi
Filmed by: Mohammed Al-Mikhlafi
Runtime: 25′

Speakers:

Kavita Puri – Editor, BBC Our World

Nawal Al-Maghafi – BBC Reporter

Andre Heller Perache – head of the Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) programmes unit and former head of mission in Yemen

Peter Oborne – Associate editor of The Spectator and chief political commentator at The Daily Telegraph

On Monday 26 October, renowned Egyptian writer, feminist and activist Nawal El Saadawi joined journalist Wendell Steavenson and a packed audience at the Frontline Club for a discussion that spanned the topics of linguistic philosophy, feminism and globalisation – all of which were explored in the context of El Saadawi‘s own life experiences and recent developments in Egyptian politics.

Sitting in same room as legend #NawalElSaadaei @frontlineclub pic.twitter.com/93hzphE6My

— Nahla Al-Ageli (@NahlaInk) October 26, 2015

The discussion began with a focus on the United States’ continued military aid to Egypt. This was something El Saadawi felt passionately against, not just in Egypt’s case but on a global level. “Fair trade, not aid,” she said.

“The 2011 revolution was hijacked by the United States working with Egyptian politicians. Hilary Clinton came to Tahrir Square as soon as the revolution began. Why?”


The conversation then moved onto the subject of globalisation, and how colonising powers have always played the game of “divide and rule.”

El Saadawi expanded: “When Sadat and Reagan came, they brought the Muslim Brothers. Why? They wanted to fragment the country by religion. They wanted to fragment the country by class. They wanted to fragment the army. What is the difference between Syria and Egypt now? Syria is completely fragmented, because the army is fragmented. And this is why we are unified in comparison. This is why the Americans are against Sisi.”

When Steavenson questioned her about the way the Egyptian government has been punishing members of the Muslim Brotherhood with imprisonment and death sentencing, El Saadawi said: “I am against the death penalty. I am against putting anybody in prison. I am against all that. But I am also against a religious state. Whether Islamic, Jewish, or Christian. We cannot have true equality in any religious state, because all religions oppress women.”


She continued by explaining the extent to which gender inequality has been rooted in religion: “In the three major monotheistic religions, Adam was set free as an innocent, while Eve was a sinner because she ate from the tree of knowledge. Women are not expected to be equal. Why do you think I’ve had three husbands? Because they hated my intelligence. They wanted a stupid woman.”


Even though El Saadawi‘s main work and research focus revolves around injustice, she revealed her enduring optimism in the face of adversity. “I am always optimistic. I learned very much about this in the experience of prison. The women I was with were very pessimistic, because Sadat told us he will kill us. So every day they woke up crying, and I started dancing. I told them we will live and be free; just to have that idea gave me hope. When you have hope, you inspire people with hope, and hope is power. In the worst situations, I am hopeful.”


Steavenson asked about the moment when her sense of justice came into being, and why she initially became motivated to challenge injustice.

El Saadawi explained that when she was 7 and 8 years old, she felt something was not right in the way that she was treated in comparison with her brother. Her older brother was lazy and spoilt, whereas she was hardworking and neglected.

“During Eid, I received half the money that my brother received in gifts. I asked my parents why. They said because God said so. They thought they would shut me up by saying ‘God’. So my first letter ever when I was 8 years old was to God, but I still haven’t got an answer!”

On 25 February, a panel of experts convened at the Frontline Club for a discussion on the war in Afghanistan and its ongoing legacy. Chaired by BBC Afghanistan correspondent, David Loyn, the debate spanned the period from 11 September 2001 to the present day.

L-R: Mike Martin, Jawed Nader, David Loyn, Major General Jonathan Shaw and Jack Fairweather

Jawed Nader, director of the British and Irish Agencies Afghanistan Group (BAAG) who has worked with both the Afghan Government and Afghan civil society, began by commenting on his experience of foreign military intervention post 9/11. He said, “At the beginning we didn’t know what to make of it. We were upset that all these people were being killed, but then we also thought maybe Afghanistan is becoming important for the international community.”

Loyn asked Nader whether he thought war in Afghanistan was unavoidable. He responded, “I think it was inevitable, and in some ways we really wanted that war to take place. Afghanistan was in war for many years before that and we thought there would be no end to it, and then now a superpower was coming and we thought it would be a decisive war.”

On the subject of public support of the intervention, Loyn provided the audience with an American poll figure which conveyed the staggering shift in opinion. “At the time, 93% [of Americans] were in favour of the action, and last month for the first time Gallup recorded negative support for the war in Afghanistan.”  

Jack Fairweather, former Baghdad and Gulf correspondent for the Daily Telegraph and currently fellow of the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University, commented on US strategy in the region. “They [the US] took a very stripped down view of what should be done. ‘Light footprint’ was the sort of catchphrase that was doing the rounds.”

The issue of aid was also discussed in depth, as multiple aid agencies flooded Afghanistan following the outbreak of war. Nader commented that “the aid agencies wanted to do good,” but also recognised that “there was an issue that the Taliban or the ordinary people will not be able to identify who were military personnel aids and who were aid agencies… The other issue was a lot of wastage of aid.”

Major General Jonathan Shaw, recently retired from the British Army after 32 years commanding operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans, questioned “did we understand Afghanistan? The real problem is that we didn’t…the ahistorical nature of our approach was just remarkable.”

“I think we went into Afghanistan and Iraq in denial of the lessons of history, launching ourselves on an American crusade.”

Helmand was discussed in great detail, and was described as a “historical accident” by Lyon. “What the British decided to do was put in huge amounts of soldiers and very little aid and wondered why it upset the locals,” added Shaw.

“Prediction about Afghanistan is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future”. Jawed Nader at @frontlineclub

— Chris King (@DocChrisKing) February 25, 2015

Former British Army Office and pushtu-speaker Mike Martin, who served and undertook extensive research in Helmand during the war, commented on the damage inflicted in the province by UK and US military forces.

“Helmand seems to be a microcosm or a slightly extreme version of what happened elsewhere in Afghanistan…. We completely misunderstood what was going on… In Helmand what you saw was a civil war, it had nothing to do with the Taliban or the government. All of the Helmandis understood that we understood the conflict as a dichotomous good/bad government/Taliban…

“We made it worse: rather than clamping down on the violence we actually made it more violent.”

Shaw spoke on the relationship between the armed forces and Whitehall. “The problem is connecting the military instrument to the political objectives. The military were the wrong tool for the job… The military should have been support of the political plan.”

Nader then moved the discussion onto the West’s tendency to misinterpret the needs of Afghanistan.

“We compare Afghanistan with high standards, of European standards I believe, whereas Afghanistan should be compared with its regional countries,” he said.

Nader closed the debate with a hopeful view of the future of Afghanistan.”Today Afghanistan has changed in three main ways. One, Afghanistan is a better place to live, Second, Afghanistan is more diverse…And third, Afghanistan is more self aware, more critical.

“All of these positive changes would not have happened had you not gone to Afghanistan to topple a very draconian regime, the Taliban.”

Listen and watch back below:

url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/193024169&color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false” width=”100%” height=”166″ frameborder=”no” scrolling=”no”>

After many years of receiving a considerable amount of foreign aid, Haiti remains an impoverished and politically fragile state. AIDependence tells the story of the controversial relationship between the people of Haiti and international aid organisations, and exposes the negative side effects of the aid industry, including dependency, corruption, and the corrosion of solidarity and the economy.

Alice Smeets‘ documentary follows Robi, a young Haitian from the poorest slum in the western hemisphere, Cité Soleil, and Sabina, his American girlfriend and former aid worker. Together they work to change the traditional system of aid and are partisans of “Konbit Soley Leve”, a movement which aims to mobilise Haitian communities in solving issues related to healthcare and access to resources.

Through interviews with aid workers, economists, and Haitian activists, AIDependence breaks down stereotypes about non-governmental organisations, aid and poverty in order to shed light on the various models of international aid, and why some seem to work better than others. Using the example of Haiti, the country with the most NGOs per capita, Alice Smeets presents a well-informed analysis of how development projects can give rise to cycles of dependence rather than long-term solutions.

Directed by Alice Smeets
Duration: 90′
Year: 2014

“Does the Pubic Still Care?” was the poignant title of the discussion on conflict and disaster reporting which was chaired by Ben Parker at the Frontline Club on Thursday 23 October. The event was organised by the Oversees Development Institute and Humanitarian Policy Group. Channel 4 News anchor, Jon Snow, and senior reporter for the People and Power programme on Al Jazeera English, Juliana Ruhfus, were joined by experts in aid and development, Marc DuBois, former head of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and Eva Svoboda, research fellow in the Humanitarian Policy Group at the Overseas Development Institute.

The event was being followed online #crisisreporting

The relationship of dependency and power that exists between aid agencies, the public and the media was the core focus of the evening. Using examples from Gaza to Haiti and East Timor, the panel illustrated the crisis and development each of these elements has undergone and how it has affected the other.

To begin the audience was taken back to the 1984 Ethiopia famine with Michael Burke’s compelling documentary report. Parker, who has worked in media and humanitarian aid for 20 years, opened the discussion with the following question:

“Can a news moment like Michael Burke’s piece happen again? . . . Can it ignite the public? Can it change the course of history in a small way? . . . Does TV in that same way still exist?”

Snow’s initial response was an affirmative yes. He used examples from the last four years of public response to make his case. For example, the 2010 Haiti earthquake saw the emergency fund raise it’s second largest ever donation. Snow said, “The stream is certainly not dry and I would argue that our connected digital world is making it easier for us to draw attention.”

DuBois similarly dismissed public disaster fatigue and focused on the power of compassion, saying “disaster is inherently compelling . . . compassion is alive and well”.

Ruhfus instead argued that the quality of giving has changed. She referred to the lack of clarity and neutrality in today’s media reports and national aid donations.

“The ‘us’ and ‘them’ that was very simple when Michael Burke made his films has totally shifted. . . . I am the enemy. I am no longer the ‘saviour’ and that’s a similar fate that aid agencies are dealing with too.”

Ruhfus implied that in the past aid agencies were able to function in an apolitical sphere. Svoboda’s standpoint was somewhere in between, to her mind although 9/11 had a negative impact on aid agencies they were always politicised. She argued that despite being more complex, today there are more actors, more competition and, importantly, more accountability. All four of the speakers agreed that more people in the world are aware of what is going on around them than ever before.

The discussion turned to the ever-present Ebola crisis and its slow journey to UK headlines. This highlighted the question of responsibility between the aid agencies and the media to expose conflicts and disasters adequately. Snow asked his fellow speakers, “How far did the aid agencies go in persuading governments that there was a crisis?”

In return he was asked by Svoboda and DuBois how many reports were not picked up by the media. Svoboda said, “Very often you will be faced with people who just don’t care, with states that don’t care about their international obligations.”

Snow clarified the media’s stance, “We are not in the field to raise money or bring relief in any form, but to tell the story.”

Despite his positive outlook Snow admitted the failure of the media coverage on Ebola and thus the insufficient pressure on the UK government. He expressed his frustrations as a journalist with failed government policies. Of the current humanitarian crisis caused by ISIS he said:

“ISIS is a direct consequence of our people, by our people I mean us Westerners. Somehow we made this mess. Of course it was there ready to be made but at least we could have left it to them to make it.”

Ruhfus looked to the public as a key factor and blamed too much negative foreign reporting. She said, “We are in a massive trap as news broadcasters. What do we do? We are loosing our audience because we are telling the ugly truth. How do we respond to that? Do we start making the bad news sound good?”

The media’s metamorphosis has prompted aid agencies to create more of their own media bridging the gap between the two. DuBois expressed his belief that traditional forms of media were no longer adequate. “Being detached and neutral does not sell anymore, people want something authentic.”

When the audience joined in the debate, one member called for a separation between conflict relief and disaster aid stating that the public is far less engaged in the former.

Another pressing comparison was made between development versus emergency aid. Svoboda outlined the dilemma of aid agencies regarding this. “You pass from a crisis into this development and state building and you want to believe it and you ignore the facts that it’s not as stable as you want it to be,” she said. She also called for realism and modesty above all else in her field. “Their needs to be honesty about what can be done, and that’s not always easy because aid org need the money to do the work so how do you do that by selling a story.”

Another audience member observed that given the number of critical issues in today’s world the definition of what constitutes a ‘crisis’ is diminishing. Whether it continues to undermine itself is another question. In any case, the evening ended on a positive note with Snow heralding the current ‘golden age of journalism’. While there may not have been clear answers, the right questions had been asked.

You can watch and listen to the event again here:

On 23 October 1984, the BBC aired a landmark report on the famine in Ethiopia. Describing the crisis as a ‘biblical famine’, the report galvanised the public, spurred the UK government into action and prompted the creation of the infamous Live Aid concert.

Now 30 years on, is media reporting of today’s conflicts and disasters having the same effect on the public and has the nature of conflict and disaster reporting changed? How are journalists adapting to these changes?

How are humanitarian organisations working with media outlets to help generate interest and understanding of the crises affecting millions of civilians around the world?

Join the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) as they examine the current state of conflict and disaster reporting and how humanitarian agencies can work with the media to raise awareness and much-needed funds.

Chaired by Ben Parker who has worked in media and humanitarian response for over 20 years. He co-founded the IRIN humanitarian news service in 1995. As well as a reporter and editor, he has been an aid worker, most recently as head of UN’s humanitarian office in Syria in 2012, and as UN director of communications in Somalia.

The panel:

Juliana Ruhfus, senior reporter for the People and Power programme on Al Jazeera English, specialising in investigative work. Her journalistic work with Channel 4, BBC and now Al Jazeera has taken her to over 30 countries, including Somalia, Yemen, Haiti, Libya and Sri Lanka after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami.

Marc DuBois was the head of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) UK from 2008–14. He has worked in the front lines of humanitarian crises for MSF in countries including Sudan and Angola.

Jon Snow, Channel 4 News anchor since 1989. During his career he has covered conflicts in countries including Iraq, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Angola as well as the Haiti earthquake and the recent crisis in Gaza.

Eva Svoboda, research fellow in the Humanitarian Policy Group at the Overseas Development Institute. She has worked for various NGOs and the ICRC in emergencies in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

If you are unable to attend you can watch the event live, to receive a reminder register here.

Photograph: isafmedia

Filmmaker Chloe Ruthven’s grandparents were aid workers in Palestine. Growing up, she avoided getting too involved in the subject, recalling how mention of it made all the adults in her life angry. Inspired by a book written by her grandmother about the aid projects in Palestine, Ruthven explores the effects of foreign aid and the potential damage the continued reliance may have for the future.

Along the way she meets Lubna Masarwa, a forthright Palestinian woman. She not only becomes her driver, guide and fixer, but also offers a rare insight into the complex cultural and political situation on the ground. Masarwa speaks frankly of her distaste and distrust of foreign aid, something that lies uneasy with Ruthven as she seeks to find the lasting benefits of the work her grandparents supported.

What begins as a quest to better grasp her family history, turns into an emotional account of two women trying to understand one another and a unique joining of the acutely personal and complexly political. Interviews with international aid workers, Palestinian project managers, Western volunteers, local farmers and videos of her grandparents at the time, illustrate the complexity of the situation.

Directed by Chloe Ruthven
Duration: 75′
Year: 2013

On 12 January 2010 the deadliest earthquake ever recorded in the western hemisphere hit Haiti, claiming between 230,000 and 300,000 lives. As aid organisations flooded the country there was an unprecedented outpouring from the international community, and $15.3 billion was pledged for relief and reconstruction.

We will be joined by a panel of experts from the humanitarian aid community and reporters who covered the earthquake and the subsequent reconstruction efforts, to examine why – after three years and $15.3 billion – the country is still in crisis.

In a recent development, cholera victims in Haiti are threatening to sue the UN, accusing them of negligently allowing peacekeeping soldiers to pollute Haiti’s water with cholera. We will be asking how the situation went so wrong and have the lessons been learned.

Chaired by Inigo Gilmore, an award winning journalist and filmmaker who has worked across the world, with extensive experience in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

The panel:

Jonathan Katz is a writer and reporter, he is author of The Big Truck That Went By: How the World Came to Save Haiti and Left Behind a Disaster. He has written for the AP for six years, stationed in Haiti for nearly three and a half years and was the only American reporter in the country when the earthquake hit on 12 January 2010. He is the 2010 recipient of the Medill Medal of Courage in Journalism and the 2012 winner of the J. Anthony Lukas Work-in-Progress Award for this book.

Andy Leak is professor of French and Francophone Studies at University College London. His current research centres on literature and politics in Haiti since 1986. He is also secretary of the Haiti Support Group – a UK-based not-for-profit which seeks to amplify the voices of progressive Haitian CSOs in Europe and N. America. He is one of the editors of the quarterly Haiti Briefing.

Arjan Hehenkamp is a general director of Medecins Sans Frontieres (for the Dutch section) and has twenty years experience of humanitarian work around the world since starting in Somalia in 1993. Since 2006 he has been ultimately responsible for much of MSF’s work in Haiti as well as many other countries. MSF has been working in Haiti since 1991 and currently runs substantial medical programmes in the country.

Mario Gousse is a Haitian-born science teacher based in the UK. He is a member of the Haiti Support Group Executive Committee.  He has helped to found the education charity UHUK (United Haitians in the United Kingdom) and currently serves as their Education Officer.  He is a student and observer of Haitian history, politics and culture.

With extreme weather leading to failing harvests and rising food prices, food security is one of the biggest problems facing governments today. The IF campaign has highlighted four areas that they believe can help tackle hunger: aid, tax, land and transparency.

One billion people go to bed hungry every night and two million children die from malnutrition every year. We will be joined by those involved in the campaign and others to break down the problems with our food system and ask what can be done to fix it.

Chaired by Paul Vallely, a leading writer on development, he is associate editor of The Independent where he writes about ethical, cultural and political issues. He has previously reported from over 30 countries and was the Africa correspondent for The Times. He has written a number of books including Bad Samaritans: First World Ethics and Third World Debt, Promised Lands and he ghost-wrote Bob Geldof’s autobiography, Is That It?.

The panel:

Paul McMahon has worked as an advisor on sustainable food systems to environmental charities and UN agencies. He co-founded and now helps run SLM Partners, a business that invests in sustainable agriculture. He is the author of Feeding Frenzy: The New Politics of Food.

Mike Lewis leads ActionAid UK’s policy work on tax in the developing world. He was previously a UN sanctions investigator and member of the UN Panel of Experts on Sudan. He has a background in NGO research on tax, financial transparency, human rights and the role of business in conflict.

David Bull joined UNICEF UK (United Nations Children’s Fund) as Executive Director in 1999 and since the the charities income has trebled. He has travelled to scores of countries to advocate for children caught in conflict or in silent emergencies.

Mary Creagh is Labour MP for Wakefield and Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Organised by ShelterBox

Join us for a panel debate, chaired by Clive Jones, Chair of the Disasters Emergency Committee (and ITV News) with: Mike Thomson, foreign affairs correspondent for BBC Radio 4’s Today programme; Sarah Whitehead of Sky News; DFID’s Dylan Winder; and Ross Preston, head of operations for international disaster relief charity, ShelterBox.

Inspired by ShelterBox, a growing emergency shelter provider in international disaster relief, we are offering a debate on how the media covers disasters, how journalists are selected, briefed and operate once in the field, and the value of their coverage.

The panel is chaired by Clive Jones CBE, the chair of the Disasters Emergency Committee. He is a former chairman of GMTV and ITV News, and an honorary visiting professor at the School of Journalism, Media and Culture Studies at the University of Wales.

The panel:

Sarah Whitehead, international affairs editor, Sky News.

Dylan Winder, head of humanitarian response, Department For International Development (DFID).

Ross Preston MBE, head of operations, ShelterBox International.

Mike Thomson, foreign affairs correspondent for BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.