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

Social Research, Spring, 2007 by Mary B. Anderson

The pragmatic dimension derives from its impact as a threat or actual departure to support a change processes. The argument here emphasizes the leverage that international humanitarians have to highlight wrongdoing and to call the world's attention to inhumane and abusive actions. The threat of withdrawal or actual leaving is accompanied by public speaking out about conditions. The purpose is to influence the situation for the better.

The moral dimension of withdrawal arises from the message it sends about the inhumanity of the situation. Further, those who advocate this are concerned about the possibility they see of becoming tainted by inhumane restrictions on their work. People who take this position feel that they cannot continue to operate within a harmful setting because this could, and could be seen to, support or condone it. They feel the moral imperative of taking the action that is within their power and, as outsiders, they feel their only real option is to withdraw physically. This group also observes that, precisely because they once showed their commitment to the people in this situation, the very difficulty of the decision to leave carries a special moral force. Taking this action is, they feel, an essentially humanitarian thing to do in support (rather than abandonment) of the people they came to serve. Withdrawal in this sense is always combined with voice: public speaking out, explaining why the withdrawal is necessary and the circumstances that drove them to this decision.

Whether to Voice Objections: The Pro Arguments

Those who choose to speak out also do so from their moral or ethical commitment to humanitarianism. Their arguments mirror the discussions offered by Hirschman about how people effectively use "voice" to change failing situations. It is both right and, they hope, effective.

They note that silence in effect supports an existing system and this inevitably ends by corrupting even the good that one would have wanted to do. To be silent in the face of inhumanity is to deny the basis of humanitarianism and, through silence, to allow and condone inhumanity.

They also note that voice very often is effective. "Name and shame" campaigns, such as those conducted by Amnesty International, have had important influence. Abuses have been stopped by international pressure brought to bear on offenders. If one truly responds to suffering, they argue, one mechanism for doing so is through voice.

The Con Arguments

Those who decide not to speak out weigh the good they know they can do for those they serve against the possible (but uncertain) good they might do by speaking out. They recognize the likelihood that, if they voice public concern, they will be expelled from the situation, leaving behind and unattended the needs that humanitarians are committed to serve. They point to occasions where "name and shame" has not worked but, instead, caused abusers to become ever more isolated, defensive and harsh in their actions.

Engagement: A Variation on the Choice Based on Presence and Quiet