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

Social Research, Spring, 2007 by Mary B. Anderson

The decisions of donor nations about which countries, and which groups within countries, will receive priority are always a reflection of international politics. As some crises receive more international attention (and money) than others, humanitarian NGOs constantly review and struggle with the ways in which these decisions affect their decisions about where and with whom to respond.

Further, in some locations, as humanitarians decide whether or not to respond to a crisis, they are aware, in advance, that local political realities will circumscribe their access and dictate the conditions under which they can deliver help to people in need. Local politicians will determine who they can serve and who they cannot serve. Local regulations will allow some forms of help and not others. Local powers see international resources as a means to exert their own agendas and control. These circumstances are constantly present in civil war situations such as those that existed in Bosnia-Herzigovina and in southern Sudan in recent years. Knowing that such constraints can, and often do, serve nefarious purposes, NGOs have to decide whether to enter this situation. Should they respond to the needs they can serve and live with the reality that others will not be served and that this, in itself, supports the political will of the faction that controls their access? Or should they shun involvement in order not to be complicit with and reinforce such intergroup domination?

Finally, where governments are new and unproved, often in postconflict situations, international aid workers have to decide whether or not to work with them. When newly formed, postconflict governments include former warriors known to have been directly involved in atrocities during the conflict, do outsiders--who have a choice--work with this government (thereby helping strengthen it), or do they shun it until it proves itself as competent, not corrupt, and legitimate? International development and humanitarian NGOs have faced this choice many times in recent years in places such a Mozambique and Afghanistan, to name only two. When is a government "worthy" of support and when should one withhold involvement?

B. Whether to Stay or Leave

Once in a country, humanitarian agencies may become aware of or encounter new circumstances that are disquieting in their implications for how their aid is used. Realizing their possible complicity in these circumstances, humanitarians face the choice of whether to stay and continue their work or to leave. Having entered a community and become involved helping local people, the decision between staying and leaving is difficult.

A striking illustration of the stay or leave dilemma confronted humanitarians soon after the genocide in Rwanda. Thousands of Hutus fled to what was then Zaire as well as to Tanzania. As people crossed these borders, the international humanitarian community responded by setting up refugee camps and supplying lifesaving aid. Within a very short time, it became clear that some number of people in the camps, particularly at Goma, were genocidaires, who had committed and sometimes spearheaded violent crimes. There were reports that they were using the camps as a base for regrouping and recruitment. Further, even if these individuals had not been engaged in continuing as fighters, NGOs questioned whether they, as humanitarians, should be providing assistance to people who had just committed the crime of genocide. Did they "deserve" humanitarian assistance? Some agencies left; others stayed.