On March 8, after weeks of brutal attacks on Homs, Syria by government forces, the International Red Cross gained limited access to the city to provide desperately needed humanitarian aid.
In current situations of political turmoil in Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Libya, to name a few, humanitarian aid plays a critical role in the care and survival of many civilians. Each humanitarian organization abides by its individual policies of advocacy in relation to humanitarianism.
The Red Cross upholds a system known as “silent diplomacy,” whereby the organization will only in rare circumstances comment on the situations they witness during their missions. This policy was adopted to allow the organization increased access to civilians living in politically volatile situations.
By contrast, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), or Doctors Without Borders, maintains a policy of “témoignage.” MSF was created by a group of Red Cross doctors and French reporters who refused to remain silent on the atrocities of the civil war in Nigeria in 1971. “Témoignage” is outlined as MSF’s commitment to speaking out about human rights violations and demanding international attention for those victims who cannot.
Although a globally known and respected NGO, témoignage has sometimes prevented MSF from gaining entrance into certain countries, such as those whose governments practice human rights violations. For instance, MSF has not been granted access to Syria. Instead, it remains on the country’s borders to provide aid to civilians lucky enough to escape.
Médecins du Monde is an even more vocal group born from a split within MSF. The group supports the policy of speaking out against human rights crimes, but also maintains conditional aid policy. Médecins du Monde has withdrawn missions in countries where the government has supported or ignored violations of human rights.
The variations of advocacy policies for humanitarian organizations have been hotly debated among different advocates. Despite this, the international humanitarian community agrees that the fundamental mission of each of these groups is to save lives, reduce suffering and strengthen human dignity.
It is crucial to look at these policies in terms of their effect on the actual humanitarian workers applying them in the field. Before joining an organization, each individual needs to consider the same ethical dilemmas founding members did. Should they opt for silent democracy and focus on the patients’ suffering in the present context? Or should they bring international attention to these crises in hopes of introducing lasting change, even if it means jeopardizing their access to people currently in need?
Christopher Cushing, the current president and CEO of FIM-Forum for Democratic Global Governance, recently came to McGill and touched on the issue of aid and advocacy during his presentation. Cushing, a lifelong humanitarian, has experience working for MSF, the Red Cross, the UN and CARE Canada. In an email correspondence with Speak!, Cushing wrote, “For most humanitarian workers, you are constantly faced with a no-win situation where you want to support a vulnerable population but sometimes have to choose to either speak out, remain silent or try quiet diplomacy. This calculation changes every hour.”
The chaos of a conflict or natural disaster places humanitarian workers in charged political environments, where they are expected to make such difficult decisions. Cushing wrote, “Medical groups like MSF and Médecins du Monde will have a natural predilection to favour keeping on working in the face of rights abuses because they don’t want to abandon a population under threat. This is natural, but has to be balanced against the larger human rights context.”
The advocacy policies of humanitarian organizations serve as guidelines for workers in the field. It remains the job of each organization and individual to first decide where to draw the line between speaking out and silence, and pinpoint the moment when human suffering becomes too pervasive.
