Nicolas De Torrente on how humanitarian aid organizations can be more effective and helpful in a world of global politics.
Dr. De Torrente is the former Executive Director of Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders. He is currently a board member for the Drugs for Neglected Disease Initiative.
Harvard Political Review: You have written in the Harvard International Review about the growing politicization of humanitarian aid and especially how it often picks winners and losers.
Do you think that it is possible for any aid organization to not choose a side in a conflict?
NT: I think it is possible not to choose a side and to make very deliberate efforts to not take sides, to not espouse any political cause in the conflict, and to not make a determination of who’s right or wrong. The focus should be on asking, who is suffering? who is in need? and how to help them? Now it’s difficult for [an organization’s] actions to be construed as non-political or completely divorced from the dynamics of the conflict. If you help a population that is under the control of one group, then it can be interpreted or construed. … If you speak out against violations or atrocities committed by one side rather than the other, it can be a problem.
There are a lot of examples we see right now in Darfur, for instance, where aid organizations including MSF (Médecins Sans Frontières) are caught up in a the political. They are basically exposed to political agendas that are far greater than the ones that they have control over, which is the way that the aid is distributed and the way that people are being helped. … I think it’s very necessary to stay out of the political, but it’s difficult to do so because you’re in the middle of it.
HPR: Do you think it worsens a situation when international powers become involved in the affairs of foreign countries? Is there any way for them to contribute constructively or are they bound to make the situation worse?
NT: I don’t think they necessarily make things worse. … No aid organization would say that the politics of, let’s say, the US government or the EU with regards to say, Sudan, should be humanitarian. … All we’re saying is that in the way that national governments should preserve the space and the ability for the aid organizations to provide assistance. We call it humanitarian space and think it should be outside, separate, and not subject to or linked with other objectives, which is often what happens. Richard Holbrooke was complaining that U.S. intelligence did not understand the Taliban and said that 90% of the information that the US did have about the Taliban came from aid organizations (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iWxiu65iLP4CvDJ7BEsBOx-u_vdwD97DQAP00 )…That’s a very dangerous position to put aid organizations in. To be seen as intelligence providers, to be seen as helping the U.S.’s fight against the Taliban, that’s what we are very much against. We insist on having a separation from the political agendas.
HPR: After the international criminal court issued a warrant for the arrest of Omar al-Bashir, many humanitarian groups including your own were kicked out of Darfur by Sudan’s national security service. Who is to blame for this situation and how can we learn from this problem?
NT: I think the analysts who argue that the problem is with the indictment becoming international policy by default have a very strong point. That kind of crystallizes everything around the indictment. All of the case for indictment is built, as far as we know, on witness accounts from people who were victimized, who can testify to what happened and who was responsible. The prosecutor implied that NGOs did support and facilitate his work. That puts us in a very difficult situation. We made it clear that we did not pass any information on to the court and that the prosecution, the accusation, is not based on interior information. It’s based on witness accounts. … For us, the key thing is to separate ourselves even more strenuously from international proceedings. That’s really the main thing we have to do to have a chance at preserving our operations.
HPR: What is the responsibility of the governments of developed countries, with respect to the developing world? In times of crisis should they intervene or use force? What is most helpful to aid organizations?
NT: I think their responsibilities with respect to humanitarianism very clear. There are two main ones: respecting international humanitarian law and enforcing that. … This has come up a lot in the discussion of the U.S. and torture, for instance. There are major violations carried out by allies of the international community, and of course atrocities are committed by all sides. Their other role is to make sure that they support humanitarian organizations to provide assistance. In terms of then what works best to try and resolve a crisis, there’s a lot of focus on military means and peace keeping, perhaps too much emphasis. It’s not that these interventions have always been problematic, but there are many other ways to resolve problems, such as diplomatic means. Protection of civilians is the main goal.