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

Social Research, Spring, 2007 by Mary B. Anderson

Those who argue in favor of presence cite two fundamental humanitarian principles: neutrality and impartiality. They argue that humanitarians have no business engaging in, or taking sides in relation to, politics. Political activism is, they say, the job of local people, not international "outsiders." They eschew "political interference" as inappropriate for non-nationals. They accept the complications of the circumstances where they work, but feel that someone must take on the specific role of humanitarianism, separate from and independent of political and monetary forces.

Believing that all human life is of equal value and focusing solely on responding to human suffering wherever it exists, they live by and reassert this universal value.

Whether to Enter: The Con Argument

Those who argue against becoming entangled in tainted circumstances also argue from a principled and moral basis. When deciding not to go to tainted circumstances, these humanitarians argue that refusal to participate in such situations demonstrates a strength of opposition that can exert power to bring change. They cite the many historical examples where people simply let bad things happen and, by failing to take action against these, in effect condoned and buttressed oppression or violence. Knowing the power of humanitarianism as an expression of an international conscience of concern for people's suffering, they use this as leverage to highlight political situations that harm their citizens. Knowing that oppressive governments survive more on the silence and inactivity of the majority than on its strong approval, they take the actions available to them to shun such circumstances--usually also with "voice." That is, they make clear in public ways the conditions that cause them to shun the tainted context, and by this, advocate for or "add their weight to" an effort to change it.

In our discussion, we have chosen to use the word "tainted" to describe the circumstances that force the difficult choices we are considering. This word has two dimensions. It highlights that, not only are some situations very bad, but that such tainted situations can also "taint" those who become involved in them. The word connotes the process by which disease or decay or putrefaction spreads, contaminating what it touches. "Tainted" implies the tendency of a morally corrupt situation to corrupt the morals of those who are in it. Taintedness may spread and spoil those who come within its reach.

Those who argue against going into such circumstances stress this relationship. They believe that some circumstances are so complexly negative that it is impossible to do the good we mean to do without becoming tainted by the circumstances in which we work. They feel that the purity of the humanitarian imperative, and the purity of the principles of neutrality and impartiality, are so compromised by such situations as to become meaningless.

Whether to Stay: The Pro Argument

The argument for staying in a situation that is tainted or seen to have deteriorated to such an extent that a choice must be (re)made follows the same lines as the decision to go to such situations. The choice is driven by the commitment to help people under whatever circumstances to the extent possible.