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

Social Research, Spring, 2007 by Mary B. Anderson

However, an additional dimension is added once work has been undertaken. Those who argue that, once there, humanitarians should stay point to experience that shows that the very act of withdrawing assistance has negative effects. They argue that when international humanitarians leave a bad situation, it exacerbates or prompts further violence and conflict. In conflict areas, they observe that when international agencies withdraw, this signals local fighters that conditions are getting worse. In some instances this causes the fighters to take preemptive action to ensure they are not caught off guard by the "other side." Further, proponents of staying say withdrawal of international actors in response to deteriorating circumstances sends a message that committing violent or inhumane acts can actually drive out the international community. This has implications for the security both of other international humanitarians as well as for local people. Further, they note the positive impacts of an international presence in preventing or mitigating human rights abuse. If internationals leave, this removes one form of protection they feel that humanitarians can offer to people in need.

Because of these added negatives of leaving, those who argue in favor of staying differentiate the choice to stay from the choice to enter a location. They feel that although it may in some circumstances be right not to enter a tainted situation, once there, the obligation to remain becomes preeminent because of these added negative impacts.

Some people add a future-directed argument to support the decision to stay even under nefarious circumstances. As noted earlier, they fear that to become engaged in the political situation that affects aid delivery in any location is to risk, in subsequent disasters, exclusion from responding to need because local authorities might refuse entry to an agency that has highlighted political problems in other areas.

Whether to Stay: The Con Argument

Humanitarians who argue that it can be right to leave a situation that has deteriorated (or been discovered to be severely tainted) note the power of the threat, and the impacts, of withdrawal. Some agencies set standard criteria for decisions about whether to stay in a troubled setting or to leave. For example, some have established the rule that, if any of their staff are threatened or killed, they will immediately withdraw. Making this condition clear from the beginning of an intervention can, they argue, greatly improve the security of humanitarian agency staff. They note, however, that the threat is only believed if, in fact, the agency is prepared to carry through on its threat.

Even with such rules in place, however, specific circumstances can shape the timing or framework for such decisions. Is withdrawal threatened or carried out? Is it partial or total? Does one take time to arrange the departure so that hardship is lessened or leave immediately to make a point? Does one leave permanently or conditionally, stipulating some desired change that will justify reentry?. Proponents of withdrawal feel that these subchoices all can be used to improve the leverage they hope to exert by leaving. This leverage, they feel, has two dimensions.