To work, or not to work, in "tainted" circumstances: difficult choices for humanitarians

Social Research, Spring, 2007 by Mary B. Anderson

IN 2004, AS THE FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF THE US ENTRY INTO IRAQ approached, I was asked by colleagues to go to Iraq to conduct some training workshops for the local staff of international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). I am an American. The NGOs I would be working with receive US government funding for some programs. If I went, would I be reinforcing a military operation by advancing a "hearts and minds" campaign? Or would I be demonstrating concern and support for local people involved in efforts to alleviate suffering and contribute to redevelopment?

A few years ago, I was asked by a colleague if my organization would be willing to visit an international corporation--working in a country that is known to abuse its citizens--in order to review the effects of the corporate operations on the people in their area. The corporation is criticized by human rights groups for working in this country but, through their own investigations, felt they were benefiting people in the area. If we went, and found that the corporation's assessment was correct, would we be complicit in supporting oppression? Or would we be contributing to an approach toward helping people who live under difficult circumstances?

I begin this article with two of the many possible personal stories I could cite to raise one difficult choice that frequently confronts international humanitarian agencies: When is it right, and when is it wrong, to work in "tainted" circumstances?

For international humanitarians, the decision of whether to enter, or stay, in compromised and compromising political and military settings is one that must regularly be faced. It is in the nature of humanitarian work to go to unsettled areas where existing governance and social structures are inadequate for handling crises. International help is provided when situations are out of control and beyond "normal." Such situations are often "tainted."

What do we mean by tainted circumstances? We use the term "tainted" to refer to the broad range of situations where, for example, government officials are more concerned with personal wealth and power than with the well-being of the people, or where international aid is manipulated by warlords and fighters to serve the ends of war or where international diplomatic, or military actors expect humanitarian assistance to "pick up the pieces" of failed diplomatic initiatives. In these and other such circumstances, the question arises: By working in this system and with these people, although we are here to save lives, are we also complicit with and supporting inhumane or oppressive processes?

In his famous extended essay written in 1970, Exit, Voice and Loyalty, Albert Hirschman explores how individuals and groups can express their dissatisfaction with systems that go into decline. He provides what he himself calls "numerous baroque ornamentations" to his wise and careful examination of the options for individuals and groups to express themselves through "voice" (speaking out against problems) or "exit" (withdrawing support or leaving), mitigated by and processed through the filter of "loyalty." Hirschman begins his discussion with a focus on customers or staff of firms that go into decline, but he extends the application of his analyses to other types of organizations and even to nation-states in ways that are helpful for thinking about the difficult choice we examine here about when is it right and when is it wrong for people involved in humanitarian assistance to work in tainted circumstances.

Hirschman's core question could be translated for the humanitarian context as: "When political and military conditions are tainted and, thus, will likely taint actions undertaken under their aegis, should humanitarians stay involved and try to exert 'voice' in order to change or improve the situation from inside or, alternatively, should they 'exit' by refusing to work under such circumstances?" Both options would be directed toward exerting influence to improve the situation for those living under oppressive or inhumane arrangements. Either could arguably be undertaken in the spirit of humanitarianism as a part of the process intended to alleviate suffering and save lives.

A review of the experience of many international humanitarians as they have encountered this difficult choice in a variety of locations and circumstances suggests that the direct translation of Hirschman's framework into this context misses an important redefining dimension. Whereas Hirschman deals with the options that people face for dealing with an organization of which they are a part, humanitarians continually confront the challenge of decision in situations of which they are not, intrinsically, a part. Humanitarians cross borders and insert themselves into other people's countries and circumstances. As "outsiders," international humanitarians make choices directed not toward changing the behavior of the agency or organization of which they are a part, but instead they make choices directed toward changing the political realities under which other people live or die where they, as outsiders, have elected to become involved. Therefore, any choice humanitarians make about whether or not to be present, or whether or not to speak out, has implications both for them and the situation (as in Hirschman's cases), and also for people who are a part of the situation into which these outsiders elect to insert themselves.