Humanitarian Negotiations Revealed gives inside account of forced
deals with regimes which abuse human rights
Peter Beaumont
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 20 November 2011 23.00 GMT
A controversial new book produced by one of the world's best-known aid
agencies, Médecins sans Frontières, lifts the lid on the often deeply
uncomfortable compromises aid organisations are forced to make while
working in conflicts.
How humanitarian aid organisations work – and the sometimes unintended
consequences of their actions – has been brutally cross-examined in
recent years, not least by the critical Dutch author Linda Polman.
MSF's collection of essays, Humanitarian Negotiations Revealed, has
provided the most detailed and self-critical inside account of the
deals aid agencies are forced to negotiate, often with groups and
regimes which abuse human rights, to continue their work.
Launched to mark the 40th anniversary of the founding of the medical
aid agency, the book offers a rare and unflinching portrait of some of
MSF's most difficult recent operations, including in Sri Lanka,
Somalia, Burma, Pakistan and Gaza.
Amid the criticism that has been levelled at aid organisations –
including the charge that humanitarian operations have sometimes
prolonged conflict through imposed alliances with warring parties –
the book asks: what constitutes an acceptable compromise with
political and military figures?
Known for often being the last group on the ground offering assistance
when others have pulled out, MSF decided that a candid examination of
these operations was in keeping with its best tradition.
MSF found itself in an unenviable position in Sri Lanka. Suspected by
the government of being pro-Tamil Tiger, MSF found itself co-opted to
working within a government "pacification policy that had settled the
ethnic question in Sri Lanka by bombings and military surveillance".
In Somalia, MSF was forced to run many operations by "remote control"
because of the risk from Islamist fighters. In 2009, MSF was subjected
to a 5% tax on the salary of all MSF employees by the al-Qaida linked
al-Shabaab militia, not to mention "registration" costs of $10,000
(£6,300) per project, a $20,000 tax every six months and was told to
dismiss all female employees.
Benoit Leduc, head of mission for MSF, France, told the Guardian:
"Each al-Shabaab demand leads to more discussions on the restrictions
we are prepared to accept or that it is reasonable to accept in such a
complex situation ...
"[But] insofar as al-Shabaab controls the majority of the country and
Mogadishu in particular [at the time Leduc is speaking of], all we can
do is accept reality. It is crucial that our patients are not selected
on the basis of their allegiance or membership of certain groups, and
that we don't choose whom we talk to – including those claiming to be
from al-Qaida."
Marie Noelle Rodrigue, operations director of MSF in Paris, said: "The
time has come to explain the fragile equilibrium between the price it
is necessary for an organisation to pay so that you are helping the
victims.
"Often that means making a compromise to a degree where you are
helping the authorities. This is a question that no-one has wanted to
examine and it is good that MSF have looked into it and I think we are
happy that we've done it honestly."
She added: "I think too often there is a mystery about what goes on in
the humanitarian world behind closed doors, despite the fact that
people know there is often a price to pay to help the victims.
"What is crucial is the examination of how you make these kinds of
difficult decisions."
That is not to say she believes any of the decisions made in
operations was necessarily right or wrong."
Indeed, in several of the case studies examined – including Burma and
the Ogaden region – what is striking is how contradictory the
responses are of the organisation's different national sections,
conflicting approaches that have sometimes complicated its work.
"Some of the case studies in the book are still under discussion
within MSF," said Rodrigue. "There are people in the organisation who
believe we did the right thing in Sri Lanka and others who think we
compromised too far. The important thing is to open it up to an honest
discussion."
Case Studies
Ogaden 2007-2008
Accused by the Ethiopian government of bias towards the Ogaden
National Liberation Front for wanting to provide in ONLF areas, the
Swiss section of MSF criticises the government for general lack of
humanitarian access while two other sections, still working in the
Ogaden, keep quiet and attempt to continue working. Despite a period
of obstruction by Ethiopian government – which "waltzes MSF twice
around the floor" — a decision is made to keep lower profile in hope
of securing better access.
Yemen 2009
During this period the Yemeni government was fighting Houthi rebels in
the country's north. MSF decided to include the conflict and its
consequences in its annual "top 10 humanitarian crises". Yemen's
response was to suspend authorisation for all MSF activities
throughout the country. Yemen offered a deal. MSF could resume
operations but only if it agreed to deny the Yemeni government was
restricting access and that there was a health care crisis. MSF
reluctantly agreed, issuing a letter acknowledging its report might
have appeared biased.
© 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies.
All rights reserved.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment