--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Friends of MSF Essay Competition 2009-10 | Category 2 ‘Theoretical and Philosophical’ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highly Commended 2009-10 Discuss the neutrality challenges encountered by International Non Government Organisations (INGOs) engaged in humanitarian relief Ruth Allen Introduction Neutrality is the key stone to the principles of humanitarian relief. Classical humanitarianism prides itself on neutrality and impartiality, as proclaimed by the Red Cross Code of Conduct. These twin principles are set front and centre of humanitarian action and are enshrined in the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols (1,2). This essay will assess the challenges to the principle of neutrality that are faced by INGOs involved in humanitarian relief in today’s “new era of humanitarianism” (3). It will illustrate, with empirical evidence, that humanitarian relief can not be neutral. Aid is often manipulated and politicized at some level, regardless of neutral intent. Politicization has become inevitable in this new era, when working within an environment where maintaining humanitarian access (4) is precariously balanced with speaking out against visible abuses and advocating for change. The debate as to whether humanitarian relief should or can be neutral is widely covered in the literature. The academic division between a classically neutral position will be compared to a new inherently political approach to humanitarian relief (5), to illustrate how both positions raise moral dilemmas and practical challenges in this new era.
Neutrality challenges in humanitarian relief - March 2009
Page 1 of 7
This essay will argue that by maintaining a classically neutral ideology, and refusing to publicly recognise non-neutral political elements of their work, organisations are devaluing their efforts and reputation, and losing respect. Support for INGO actions at national and international level will ultimately come into question, as pursuing unachievable goals equates to making empty promises. Therefore, the fundamental core principles, set out in an ‘old war’ world, are no longer adequate in the context of today’s humanitarian challenges and must be reviewed. Neutrality Challenges
Humanitarian relief is taken to be the provision of material assistance, with the aim of combating suffering, irrespective of political root or historical context, in short: to provide aid (6,7). This classical approach to humanitarianism stems from one man’s provision of assistance to a wounded soldier on the battle fields in 1863 and resulting in the formation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (8). Humanitarian need has mutated significantly since then but principles have not altered to meet the changing context. The battle fields and front lines of an ‘old war’ (9) era have been superseded by a more complex environment that humanitarian actors now operate in. The extended ‘space’ of operation and proliferation of INGOs in a post cold war period (10) in which humanitarian relief now operates forms a ‘new environment’ and a ‘new era of humanitarianism’ (3,11). The proliferation of ‘new wars’, (9) protracted civil intra-state conflicts and complex political emergencies inherently produce neutrality challenges. The existence of nonuniformed, highly mobile combatants living amongst and indistinguishable from civilian populations is one complication for actors seeking to provide neutral relief. This complication resulted in political manipulation of humanitarian relief in 1994 in the refugee camps of Zaire. Aid was abused to fuel the Rwandan genocide to control, recruit and rearm civilian populations (12), demonstrating the confusion that humanitarian relief organisations face in this new era. In a ‘new war’ environment, as in Rwanda, material aid acted as oil rather than water and exacerbated the conflict. These physical manipulations can be categorized in four groups. First, by providing resources in the form of aid, opportunity arises for its manipulation and diversion to the purposes of war by feeding militants, sustaining and protecting militant supporters, hijacking assets and thereby contributing to the war economy. Second, aid leads to distortion of local economies through the influx of resources, affecting employment Neutrality challenges in humanitarian relief - March 2009
Page 2 of 7
opportunities and market prices. Third, humanitarian intervention provides legitimacy to combatants by acknowledging their presence on the ground and negotiating terms. Finally, dependence on INGOs develops. (2,4,11-13). The Rwandan case shows these manipulations and political engagements in action and demonstrates the greater, more complex challenges of the new war context. The traditional intention to provide neutral aid which “will not be used to further a particular political standpoint” (14) clearly failed, revealing the darker, negative impact of relief operations and raising the moral dilemma as to whether aid can do harm as well as good, and if so, does benefit outweigh cost (3,12). This moral dilemma had earlier been evident during the Biafran War as aid was manipulated and politicized at national level. Relief supplies were delivered by buying space on military flights from which the Biafran government collected fees which supported the war effort. Once again the war economy was directly maintained by the humanitarian effort (15). The aim that “aid will not be used to further a particular political standpoint” (14) was far from evident in Biafra. The Biafran case “stands out as a formative experience in contemporary humanitarianism” (15): it demonstrated the politizisation of material aid at national level and was the birth of a new type of humanitarianism in a new era. This new humanitarianism was marked by the breakaway of several ICRC field staff in Biafra. They were not prepared to remain silent about the visible manipulation of humanitarian relief and no longer wanted to abide by the ICRCs strict principles of neutrality. They established a new organisation: Médecins sans Frontières, (5) creating a new ideology and new voice. MSF founders were of the opinion that; “by keeping silent, we doctors were accomplices to the systematic massacre of a population” (16). The founders of MSF acknowledges the difficulty of reconciling the two legitimate humanitarian desires; to speak out loud and expose a situation, and to maintain good relations with actors on the ground to enable access and continue to help victims (17). Reconciling these legitimate but seemingly conflicting desires is the biggest challenge in the neutrality debate. There is a negative effect of both actions; by remaining silent but blind to atrocities but maintaining access, the whistle is not blown, as ICRC did in WWII over the existence of the Nazi concentration camps (15). However, speaking out risks reduced access to beneficiaries, as occurred when MSF were evicted from Ethiopia during the 1984 famine. The line which INGOs walk is a very fine one. The birth of MSF and its outspoken approach to humanitarian relief solidified the clear conceptual distinction between two groups of humanitarians: the traditional ‘classicist’ and the new era ‘solidarist’. These two groups sit at opposing ends of a horizontal spectrum in the neutrality debate. The classicists, led by the ICRC, believe humanitarian action should Neutrality challenges in humanitarian relief - March 2009
Page 3 of 7
be neutral and completely separate from politics; “humanitarianism is neutral or it is nothing” (18). The solidarists believe political and humanitarian actions are and should be closely associated (4,5).
The new era and birth of a solidarist approach with larger mandates has brought new challenges to INGOs. The initial definition of humanitarian relief given in this essay was the classical one - the provision of neutral material assistance. However a combination of humanitarian failures and the protracted nature of conflicts in this new era (5,11) have resulted in organisations “looking for something else beyond relief” (7). Organisations are now carrying out multi-mandate operations, moving away from traditional aid distribution and towards advocating for human rights and involvement in peace building. Classicists would argue such activity takes humanitarianism beyond the role it is suited for (18) and brings a political dimension to humanitarian relief. This change towards a solidarist approach has come at a price; by over-reaching into new realms and thereby directly interacting with politics, humanitarianism has become hijacked by political motivation (18). This politizisation has prevented any chance of adhering to neutrality, but is a realistic consequence of operating in today’s environment. Brauman notes that the provision of impartial and neutral aid is the main strength of humanitarianism, but also “sets its structural limits” (6). This political hijacking of humanitarianism steps beyond the structural limits inherent in neutrality and raises the question as to how INGOs working in this era can remain neutral. The host country’s political manipulation of aid at national level, as outlined above, is only half of the political equation. Foreign policy and an international agenda complete the circle of entrapping challenges for INGOs with neutral intent. This new era of humanitarianism is distinguished by the emergence of humanitarianism as a strategic instrument in the foreign policy of western powers (3). The international funding which can be argued to direct INGO activities and allow a means of western dictation to aid operation is preventing neutral action. A solidarist approach of advocating and lobbying at donor government level further concretes relations between non-government and government actors. This double edged sword of politicization is currently playing out in an increased environment and on more publicly exposed stages: more humanitarian need, more INGOs, more government funding and larger mandates.
Neutrality challenges in humanitarian relief - March 2009
Page 4 of 7
The public and highly political stage on which INGO political relations have erupted is evident in Darfur. In March 2009 the International Criminal Court issued the arrest warrant for the serving Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, publicly referring to evidence received from humanitarian agencies (19). Within an hour, the Sudanese government insisted on the eviction of ‘outspoken’ INGOs from Darfur claiming timing was not related to the ICC ruling, and organisations were not selected on the basis of regions of work or ethnicity of target beneficiaries. Darfur demonstrates the tension and danger of moving away from classic neutrality and the repercussions that doing so has on access to those on the ground. More importantly it illustrates the realism of challenging states asserting their sovereignty, and demonstrates the need to demand and ensure humanitarian access by work beyond the confines of mere service delivery and emergency response. The relations between organisations and host governments (who ultimately hold the power over INGO operations) are very fragile, a mix of sensitive advocacy and fig leaf waving service delivery. The moral dilemma of ‘do no harm’ (3,12) is faced again. Aid is shown to have negative effects, but that does not mean doing some good is outweighed by unintentional harm. The dilemmas will remain, but insisting that humanitarian relief can be neutral and non political appears no longer to be plausible.
Conclusions
This essay has demonstrated that despite a desire for neutrality, it is very difficult for humanitarian relief to be neutral. Neutrality challenges have been shown to come from two sides: material manipulation for political gain by national actors, and increasing political associations through advocacy work and implementation of a foreign policy agenda through donor funding. The ‘new era of humanitarianism’ which developed within proliferating protracted conflicts and ‘new wars’ has led to extending the demanded engagement for INGOs in terms of scale and longevity. Organisations have looked beyond basic service provision to address humanitarian issues and become engaged in political realms. These politicizing factors distance INGOs from the classic neutrality of the Red Cross Code of Conduct to which most ascribe. In reality it must be acknowledged that humanitarian action, especially in conflict, will have political consequences and engagements, regardless of the non political intention (13).
Neutrality challenges in humanitarian relief - March 2009
Page 5 of 7
The new era also gives rise to increased moral dilemmas for INGOs. The challenge of reconciling an aim to ‘do no harm’ (3.12) is, and will remain, ongoing. The evidence from Biafra, Rwanda, and more recently Sudan, ratifies the argument that neutral intent has been almost impossible to realize. Maintaining a classical position leads to avoidance of whistle blowing which could prevent further harm, but increases the likelihood of access to beneficiaries and therefore ensures continued service provision. Taking a solidarist view, where humanitarianism and politics are closely related can result in co-option by foreign governments and denied access to the very population INGOs are intending to assist. Therefore both a classicist and solidarist approach to humanitarian relief face challenges and moral dilemmas regarding neutrality. This essay suggests that INGOs should accept that the politicization of their actions is inevitable and that strict neutrality is impossible. The political dimension to their work is increased and magnified in this new era of humanitarianism. Therefore, empty intent, from both ends of the spectrum is devaluing humanitarian relief operations. Despite empirical evidence that political and humanitarian action cannot be disassociated (5,6) organizations maintain they are ‘neutral’. MSF, as many other INGOs still refrained from removing ‘neutral’ from their mandate. Contrary to the Code of Conduct, aid will continue to be used to further particular political standpoints. Humanitarian agencies need to re-conceptualize their core principles to update them for the new era in which they now operate. An element of realism needs to be included in a review of humanitarian intent and ambition before credibility is undermined any further and the already fragile faith in humanitarian relief is lost.
Neutrality challenges in humanitarian relief - March 2009
Page 6 of 7
References 1. Barakat S. After the conflict: reconstruction and development in the aftermath of war. London; New York: I.B. Tauris; 2005. 2. Slim H. Relief agencies and moral standing in war: principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and solidarity. Development in Practice. 1997; 7(4); 352. 3. Slim H. Doing the Right Thing: Relief Agencies, Moral Dilemmas and Moral Responsibility. Political Emergencies and War; Report 6: Studies on Emergencies and Disaster Relief; Nordiska Afrikainstitutet. 1997; 4. 4. Duffield, M. The Political Economy of Internal War: Asset Transfer, Complex Emergencies and International aid. In: Macrae, J. and A. Zwi, with M. Duffield and H. Slim. War and Hunger: Rethinking International Responses to Complex Emergencies, London: Zed Books/Save the Children Fund. 1994. 5. Weiss Thomas G. Principles, Politics, and Humanitarian Action. Ethics & International Affairs; 1999; 13; 1-22. 6. Brauman R. Refugee Camps, Population Transfers, and NGOs. In: Hard Choices: Moral Dilemmas in Humanitarian Intervention, ed. J. Moore. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc; 1998; 192. 7. Rieff D. A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis, London: Vintage; 2002; 21-22. 8. International Committee of the Red Cross, Founding and early years of the ICRC, http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/section_founding?OpenDocument 9. Kaldor M. New and old wars: organized violence in a global era. 2nd edition. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press; 2007. 10. Howell J. and Pearce J. Civil Society and Development: A Critical Exploration. London: Rienner; 2001. 11. Cushing C. Humanitarian Assistance and the Role of NGOs. Centre for Foreign Policy Studies, Dalhousie University Working Papers Series; 1995, 6. 12. Anderson M. You Save My Life Today, But What for Tomorrow? Some Moral Dilemmas of Humanitarian Aid. In: Hard Choices: Moral Dilemmas in Humanitarian Intervention ed. J. Moore. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; 1998; 145. 13. Lischer S. K. Collateral Damage: Humanitarian Assistance as a Cause of Conflict. In: International Security; 28(1);79-109. 14. International Committee of the Red Cross, Principles of Conduct for The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Response Programmes, http://www.ifrc.org/publicat/conduct/code.asp. 1994. 15. De Waal A. Retreat from Accountability II: The Humanitarian International. In: Famine crimes: politics and the disaster relief industry in Africa. London: James Currey Publishers; 1997; 65-85 16. Benthall J. Disasters, relief and the Media. London: I.B. Tauris; 1993; 125. 17. MSF (1997) World in crisis : the politics of survival at the end of the twentieth century, edited by MÊdecins sans Frontières: project coordinator, Groenewold, J. and Porter E., London; New York: Routledge 18. Rieff D. A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis, London: Vintage; 2002; 330, 306. 19. Flint J. and de Waal, A. To put justice before peace spells disaster for Sudan. London: The Guardian, 6 March 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/06/sudan-war-crimes.
Neutrality challenges in humanitarian relief - March 2009
Page 7 of 7