Provocation: NGO Neutrality Is Dead
Published April 07, 2009 @ 08:43PM PT
It's time we accepted a rather brutal fact - NGOs aren't neutral. Or, more to the point, NGOs are no longer seen as neutral, at least not in places like Afghanistan and Darfur.
And the longer that NGOs insist on clinging to a myth of neutrality - at least in certain conflicts - the more aid workers will be killed.
We can argue over causes, but the statistics speak for themselves. According to a recent report by the Center for International Cooperation and the Overseas Development Institute, 260 humanitarian aid workers were killed, kidnapped or seriously injured last year, making 2008 by far the deadliest year on record.
(By comparison, in 206 aid workers were killed, kidnapped or seriously injured in 2007.)
Two statistics are most telling. First, these attacks are clustered in relatively few countries - 75% of all attacks over the past three years occurred in just seven countries: Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Chad, Iraq and Pakistan.
Second,more and more attacks are politically motivated - "Politically motivated incidents rose from 29% of the known total in 2003 to 49% in 2008."
"The most recent evidence continues to show that even those agencies that make considerable efforts to disassociate themselves from political actors and project an image of neutrality have not been immune from attack...We would posit that aid organisations are being attacked not just because they are perceived to be cooperating with Western political actors, but because they are perceived as wholly a part of the Western agenda."
No matter what we might want to believe, it's increasingly difficult to put much faith in NGO neutrality, at least in the countries mentioned above.
And once the perception of neutrality goes out the window, then the entire idea of security through acceptance begins to look increasingly problematic.
The allegiance and support of a local community in a country like Afghanistan doesn't mean much when the Taliban come through town. Especially not when the Taliban see aid workers as part of the "foreign invader forces".
A man I very much respect used to talk about frogs in boiling water - the inability to see that a situation has deteriorated past the point of no return until it's far, far too late.
Or, put another way, aid agencies have a choice. They can stop working in certain conflicts, or at least in certain areas, or they can accept the cost of continuing operations - more and more staff injured, kidnapped, and killed.
The one unforgivable sin is to pretend that these choices don't have to be made.
[Image from Flickr]
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Provocation: Whose Life Is Worth More?
-
Pakistan, Afghanistan Are Deadliest Countries for Aid Workers
-
Three Aid Workers Killed in the Central African Republic
Comments (17)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Michael has worked for NGOs in Afghanistan, across east and central Africa, and Iraq. Prior to going overseas, he worked on a project providing assistance to the United Nations on the application of International Humanitarian Law to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.
Featured War and Peace Actions
-
-
Help Children and Widows In Gaza
290 People
-
Help Children and Widows In Gaza
-
I would hardly call this one a provocation... Most colleagues I talk with have come to this same conclusion some time ago.
I am aware of one agency where there is an active discussion whether they should divide their staff in a pool of people who are sufficiently aware, experienced, and willing to take the risks in areas like e.g. Afghanistan, and a pool of people who are unwilling or not experienced enough to do so. I don't think they will decide to do so, but just the fact that they are even considering this makes it clear that this is not new, and that not all agencies are poikilotherm.
Posted by Michael Keizer on 04/07/2009 @ 09:10PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Laughing - I was going to call this "Received wisdom," but was concerned it wasn't attention-grabbing enough.
Also, fascinating to hear about agency discussions about dividing staff -- would love to see where that goes.
Posted by Michael Bear on 04/08/2009 @ 07:37AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I don't think they will go through with this, mainly for PR and recruitment reasons. However, one of the arguments in favour was that this is already the actual situation -- you don't send anyone on their first assignment to Moqadishu, nor anyone who does not feel comfortable with being there -- but that by acknowledging it, they would have a better chance of managing things (think of specific training, different security management practices that allow for less emphasis on acceptance, etcetera), and be more transparent. The main drawback is, of course, that the risk pool might attract the 'cowboys', who are exactly the people you do not want to see in high-risk settings.
Anyway, it is a fascinating discussion.
Posted by Michael Keizer on 04/08/2009 @ 03:30PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm not sure that NGO neutrality is dead just because NGOs are not perceived to be neutral by certain groups in certain countries. As you note, the vast majority of attacks are concentrated in a particular group of countries, each of which has a particular political dynamic. It would be more accurate to say that NGOs aren't apolitical (but then they never were), and the appropriate response is that we have to better understand the political situation - and our (perceived) role - in each of those countries if we want to operate in them.
Posted by Paul Currion on 04/07/2009 @ 09:42PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Agreed, up to a point - I think it still begs the question of what NGOs are doing those in particular conflicts / countries; simply having a better understanding of the political situation is necessary, but in and of itself far from a sufficient response
Posted by Michael Bear on 04/08/2009 @ 07:38AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think the perception issue also begs the question: Does being "neutral" mean playing by the host country's rules? Of complying with their perception of neutrality, even if they are actively thwarting NGO's attempts to do their work? And then what happens when the other parties to the conflict start to see this work as aiding and abetting their opposition?
Or put another way: Who's neutrality is it, anyway?
Posted by Michelle . on 04/10/2009 @ 04:07AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Apologies for the horrible typo...I shouldn't try to think/write so early in the morning.
Posted by Michelle . on 04/10/2009 @ 06:25AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Great point, about multiple definitions of neutrality, and which at the end of the day matters more -- taking a step back, I can understand why the Taliban, or the Sudanese Government, don't see NGOs as neutral.
I think the problem lies at least partially in our refusal to accept that others might have different definitions of neutrality, regardless of whether we agree with them or not. Or, put another way, there's no platonic form of neutrality that's recognizable to everyone, everywhere.
(Apologies, just wanted to use the term "platonic form". Promise not to do so again.)
Posted by Michael Bear on 04/10/2009 @ 07:31AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Michelle... excellent point.
Posted by Laura McNamara on 04/10/2009 @ 03:25PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Neutality is dead - if it ever existed - and the sooner we all stop clinging to its corpse, the better we can get on with figuring out new ways to work in diffucult environments.
Posted by Alanna Shaikh on 04/08/2009 @ 01:20AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Great post
Posted by Website Design Website Development on 04/08/2009 @ 01:52AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
One more comment: I think we confuse things by talking about 'neutrality' as a monolithic issue. There are various aspects of neutrality:
1 Neutrality in fact: do we aid people irrespective of which side of a conflict they support?
2 Neutrality in perception: are we perceived as neutral by the conflicting parties?
3 Neutrality as a means: does our perceived neutrality allow us to help people who we otherwise would not be able to reach?
Neutrality number 1 is a precondition for 2, which in its turn is a precondition for number 3.
I would agree that number 2, and hence number 3, are deader than a doornail in many (but definitely not all!) settings, and that we should stop "clinging to its corpse" (I have never before been accused of being a necrophiliac) in these settings. However, neutrality number 1, neutrality in fact, being there as much as we can for all victims of a conflict, remains one of the most important aspects of humanitarian work; in fact, the moment we lose that, we are no longer humanitarians but just embedded aid workers.
Posted by Michael Keizer on 04/08/2009 @ 03:39PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Michael,
I would argue that, in many situations, we're not neutral in fact. Afghanistan is a perfect case in point. First, on a normative / cultural level, our support for issues like women's rights certainly marks us favoring the broader agenda of one side over another. Second, and more damning, most NGOs will balk at working in any way, shape or form with US or NATO military forces (blurring the lines, etc etc.), yet those same multi-mandate NGOs will happily work with the Afghan Government on large-scale health, education, or development programs. The Afghan Government, however, is as much a combatant in the current conflict as the US, the UK, etc. Further, some of these programs - like the National Solidarity Program - can look rather similar to traditional counter-insurgency tactics, in terms of helping to deliver services and therefore build popular support for the Afghan Government in rural areas across the country. From the Taliban's perspective, NGOs which are working to help support the Government certainly aren't neutral.
MBK
Posted by Michael Bear on 04/09/2009 @ 07:42AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I would totally agree with that analysis. That is why I very much query the wisdom of much of what we do in e.g. Afghanistan. We are not neutral any more, and then we act surprised and indignant when we are targeted by one of the sides in the conflict.
And yes, the implication of this is that, in my books, much of the work there that is advertised as being 'humanitarian' is, in fact, not.
Posted by Michael Keizer on 04/09/2009 @ 04:49PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The Afghan Government, however, is as much a combatant in the current conflict as the US, the UK, etc.
That's certainly true. However the Afghan government is also the democratically elected representative of the Afghan people. Now I can critique the electoral process in Afghanistan, but I can't really put the government and the Taliban on the same level, and I'd be astonished if you do.
Just to be clear, I think that neutrality is frequently used as a fig leaf, and that in many cases we are failing to abide by humanitarian principles - basically, we're complacent. However that's completely different to arguing that those principles are meaningless.
Posted by Paul Currion on 04/18/2009 @ 01:50AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Paul -- I'm not making a normative judgment about the Afghan Government and the Taliban. (Tho the Afghan Government certainly does have its share of problems.) Instead, making the point that, as you yourself say, humanitarian space is negotiated, and regardless of your feelings about certain of the protagonists, allying yourself so openly with one side (even for the best of reasons) makes it incredibly difficult then to negotiate the humanitarian space necessary in which to work. Which is why, or at least one reason why, the Taliban have taken to killing NGO staff.
Posted by Michael Bear on 04/18/2009 @ 12:16PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
well said Michael.
Posted by Scott Stedjan on 04/09/2009 @ 08:04AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.