Humanitarian action: From risk to real danger
by Pierre Hazan and Jean-François Berger
Available: http://www.redcross.int/EN/mag/magazine2004_1/4-9.html
A sign of the times: humanitarian action has become more vulnerable.
The Movement and other humanitarian organizations mourn colleagues killed
in suicide attacks or murdered, most recently in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In certain contexts, the increasing threat has rendered the humanitarian
mission almost impossible. How serious are these dangers and what can the
Movement do to continue to act in close proximity to the victims? Red Cross,
Red Crescent offers some elements of a response.
Rarely has the humanitarian world lived through such difficult times. In Iraq, in Afghanistan, in the Caucasus and in Africa, humanitarian workers have been deliberately targeted. On 27 October 2003 in Baghdad, an ICRC delegation was the victim of a murderous attack. The emblem, once a symbol of protection, no longer suffices. The ICRC and the International Federation, as well as other actors on the humanitarian scene, some of whose staff members have lost their lives because of the shrinking of humanitarian "space", that neutral and independent ground where humanitarians can assist vulnerable people in time of conflict and disaster, share this worrying realization. Their unprecedented vulnerability has sometimes caused humanitarian organizations to pull out or reduce activities in certain regions, which have become too dangerous (notably in Iraq, Afghanistan and Chechnya), as well as to rethink their operational strategies. According to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) spokesperson Delphine Marie, "since the murder of three of our staff in Timor in September 2000, we have been taking a long, hard look at the balance to be found between meeting populations' needs and ensuring the safety of our humanitarian workers."
The repercussions of the "war on terrorism" declared by the United States
(US) administration have accelerated the erosion of the humanitarian space.
ICRC president Jakob Kellenberger emphasizes the current trend towards
"polarization" and "radicalization", which, he says, means "certain people
associate us with the Western world, which they reject". Therefore, in
conformity with the rules set forth by the Council of Delegates in 1995,
which forbid the use of armed protection by the different components of
the Movement, and in order to avoid being associated with the US-led coalition
in Iraq, the ICRC refused the US governments offer of military protection
for its delegates in Iraq. The president of the International Federation,
Juan Manuel Suarez del Toro, stresses for his part "the growing politicization
of humanitarian aid and the erosion of respect for our independent and
impartial work, with the corollary of increasingly frequent attacks on
our staff". Pierre Kraehenbuehl, ICRC director of operations, sees a danger
"when states exploit humanitarian aid by using it as a tool for conflict
management and as an instrument to promote their own interests".
In these highly polarized contexts, is it still possible to be close
to the victims and to operate in acceptable security conditions? Ten years
ago, deliberate attacks on ICRC personnel, and Movement staff in general,
were very rare. Today, the proportion of such attacks has risen significantly
for all humanitarian workers. This extremely worrying symptom is having
a detrimental effect on the functioning and prospects of humanitarian action.
Moreover, the increasing involvement of a range of non-state actors
in conflicts is seriously complicating security matters. Some of these
actors "are caught in an unequal struggle and have no hesitation in resorting
to non-conventional methods of warfare such as attacks on humanitarian
organizations, considered to be 'soft targets'", says Michel Cagneux, head
of the ICRC's security unit. In this respect, the strengthening of passive
security measures — "bunkerization", to use the jargon — adopted by many
external actors can make the ICRC more vulnerable in the eyes of certain
groups. In a humanitarian space reduced by the logic of "who is not with
me is against me", there remains little room for the humanitarian intermediary
who, in order to assist the victims, is simply trying to remain neutral,
impartial and independent.
Future direction
To counter these new threats, there is general agreement on the need to reorient operational policy, but for the moment such developments are still in their infancy.
"Humanitarian action seems to be perceived as being driven by the Christian West," says Abbas Gullet, director of operations at the International Federation. "The challenge is to improve the level of acceptance while being perceived as a universal Movement." Pierre Kraehenbuehl agrees, but adds: "We need to explain better why impartiality and independence are so important and prove that we do not have a hidden agenda." Confirming this orientation, Dr Mahmoud Gabr, secretary general of the Egyptian Red Crescent Society believes that " the Movement must advocate and demonstrate its neutrality" while adding "to avoid overreaction to terrorism that may lead to further risks due to polarization."
Following the various attacks suffered by the Movement, the ICRC, International Federation and National Societies have radically reinforced coordination on security matters. Although certain National Societies, contrary to the rules and principles of the Movement, prefer to rely on the protection of their armed forces — notably in Iraq — there is nevertheless a strong consensus that only an independent, neutral and impartial action will be accepted by the protagonists in a situation of armed violence or conflict. But how do you respond to such an imperative?
The prevailing view is to be much better integrated at the field level.
This means developing local networks and forging links with all the actors,
be they political, humanitarian, religious or military. Above all, it requires
being better known by the non-state actors and trying to foster a dialogue
with them, an approach that is not necessarily new in itself, but that
is relatively uncharted territory. For a certain kind of belligerent secrecy
is, in fact, the modus operandi, which makes dialogue with the outside
world problematic. These include the Islamic extremist groups, contacts
with whom must be sensitively handled so as not to fuel suspicions of spying.
People to whom you can relay your message also need to be identified. For
what impact? Hard to say. In any case, this work of listening and persuasion
— which requires a lot of patience and tact — can prove to be the determining
factor and must therefore be undertaken with the utmost seriousness. New
approaches in order to strengthen the dialogue must therefore be implemented.
The "perception" factor
Risk limitation also involves adopting a more technical approach to security issues. In this domain, much has been accomplished in the last ten years, triggered by the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Now it is a question of consolidating the security rules (see box The seven pillars of security). To quote Paddy Ogilvy, an ICRC delegate: "If you do not respect the security rules, not only do you risk being fired, but above all you risk your neck!" Security briefings, systematic notification of all field movements and targeted dissemination at checkpoints are standard practice nowadays. Such measures make it possible to work in places where the risks engendered by "classic" conflicts are a daily reality, but they can do nothing to lessen the new threats facing humanitarian personnel.
Once humanitarian actors are perceived as belonging to or associated with a party to the conflict, the nature of the problem changes and demands upstream and in-depth work. It's then a priority to limit the risks stemming from the presence of so many different actors involved in the humanitarian field. The challenge here lies in convincing all the actors in a conflict that we are purely humanitarian, independent and neutral.
Because of its long-standing experience in numerous conflicts where
the collapse of social structures is fertile ground for the emergence of
all kinds of non-state armed factions and "warlords", the ICRC has no other
choice but to "find the keys" — in the words of Pierre Kraehenbuehl— that
will enable it to pursue its mission while taking into account the new
threats. The challenges confronting independent humanitarian action are
greater than ever before. This profound crisis was at the heart of the
deliberations of the 28th International Conference of the Red Cross and
Red Crescent in December 2003 in Geneva. Although the diagnosis has now
been made, finding the right responses will be long and hard.
Pierre Hazan and Jean-François Berger
Pierre Hazan is a freelance journalist based in Geneva.
Jean-François Berger is ICRC editor of Red Cross, Red Crescent.