In the week since I suggested that the incoming Obama Administration (through its holdover Defense Secretary) deploy a US Naval hospital ship to Gaza, the idea has been taken up in various parts of the blogosphere. In part thanks to John Brown's excellent public diplomacy daily roundup, several advocates and opponents have come to light.
The Washington-based Palestine Center took up the cause, and the Arab American Institute drafted a form letter to President Obama advocating both hospital ships and US Army hospitals on the Egyptian border.
Consul-at-Arms, a US Foreign Service Officer whose military experience gives him a unique insight into the nexus of defense and diplomacy, basically liked the idea, but with reservations:
Second, I'm concerned about U.S. military personnel providing medical treatment for Hamas fighters, both from the vulnerability standpoint and from undesirability of becoming the de facto medical support arm of a belligerent, Hamas...
CAA's force protection concerns are valid, and are echoed, along with concern about the US ability to project a purely "humanitarian" image, by Christopher Albon in War & Health:
I am a strong supporter of hospital ships for medical diplomacy. However, in this particular case a hospital ship is inappropriate and will send the wrong message. A major (and not unreasonable) criticism of employing the Navy as medical diplomats is that, no matter their true intentions, the mission is still a US military operation using military equipment. Thus, I hesitate to imagine how a US military ship off the Gazan coast would play out in the Arab street (whatever its hull color).
The population of Gaza was just devastated by US weapon systems sold to Israel. Those controversial Israeli white phosphorus artillery rounds were made in a small town in Arkansas. The IDF AH-64s, F-16s, F-15s, M4s and M16s are also made in the US. The only thing the Gazan people want to see less than the Israeli military is the US military.
Both Consul-at-Arms and War & Health make valid security and public diplomacy points. Alanna
Shaikh, writing in Global Health, has concerns that are largely medical:
The problem is that you just can't provide very good care from a hospital ships. There are very few cases in which good medical care can be provided by a single visit to a doctor. Good medical care needs follow-up, and hospital ships don't stay in one place long enough. Hospital ships are popular with patients primarily because they provide free care, and secondarily because they do so in an exciting setting that makes people feel like they are getting world-class American health care.
That's why people go to them; it's free and it's glamorous. The glamour makes them assume it is better care. Hospital trips demoralize local health care providers, and reduce people's faith in their skills. They are a flashing sign that says "Care here in Liberia/Mexico/Guatemala/Malaysia is so very bad that the Americans send ships to protect us from having to go to local doctors."
She has a point. Like much charity, the feel good effect is sometimes felt more by the donor than the recipient.
When I proposed sending a US Navy hospital ship, I pointed out that in France there were calls for a similar deployment. In France, an illustrious group of political and cultural celebrities signed an open letter to President Sarkozy, calling for a French naval hospital ship to join the humanitarian aid already dispatched by France.
For "logistical reasons" (which, according to "Mer et Maritime," appear to include a scheduling conflict due to joint US-French amphibious maneuvers in February), France has decided not to send one of its hospital or command ships (photo, Le BPC "Mistral," courtesy MeretMaritime.com).
In the end, perhaps the French and my skeptical American commenters are right: for "logistical" or "force protection" reasons, or simply, for medical effectiveness, maybe our hospital ships are needed more for amphibious exercises with allied nations. Preparing for some future disaster surely to strike in the Gulf of Mexico.
And maybe the US Government is justified in channeling its aid to Gaza - considerable as it is - through UN specialized agencies and the ICRC.
But I doubt seriously that there is any more urgent medical-humanitarian mission right now than Gaza. And whatever the form and amount of US aid to Gaza via the UN and the Red Cross, it doesn't have the impact - and, let's face it, the public diplomacy payoff - of a gleaming white hospital ship flying the US flag.
Hospital ship - not gunboat - diplomacy - that's another way the new Administration could mark the difference with its predecessor.
