Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
Moral and Practical Challenges to NGO Neutrality
By Barbara Brubacher
INTRAC
September 28, 2004Traditional humanitarian principles, such as the neutrality of humanitarian aid, are being undermined within complex humanitarian emergencies and with the rise of the new global world order. This loss of neutral space is a result of several overlapping factors. Since the end of the Cold War, Western foreign policy has re-oriented itself to using aid as a means of maintaining stability and stemming the rise of terrorism, and this has increasingly politicised aid. Alongside this merging of foreign policy and humanitarian goals is decreasing security for NGO staff and beneficiaries. Furthermore, many NGOs have decided selectively to abandon the principles of neutrality and non-intervention by actively promoting the idea of militarised humanitarian intervention in cases of genocide.
State agencies, including the military, as well as private development corporations are also becoming increasingly sophisticated in being able to create partnerships with/or co-opt local civilian organisations. Thus, they are usurping the traditional role of humanitarian NGOs as mediators between Western states and local civil society. This usurpation and the sheer magnitude of resources of the military and private development corporations now dwarf the programmes of humanitarian NGOs, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but in other low-income countries as well.
In the light of this current political reality, NGOs have begun to re-evaluate the meaning of not taking sides and the utility of preserving neutral space. Although most big international NGOs have agreed to uphold the principle of neutrality as well as other humanitarian principles of independence and impartiality by committing themselves to a code of conduct,[1] the changing political landscape in which NGOs operate continues to pose severe moral and practical challenges to NGOs. In response, NGOs have adopted a variety of different approaches, each with their respective strengths and weaknesses.
Classicist Approach: Preserve Neutrality
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has maintained the clearest position of classic neutrality that humanitarian action can and should be completely insulated from politics. Not only does the ICRC base its action on the application of established humanitarian law but in order to maintain neutrality has often adopted a position of silence in order to avoid being perceived as partisan.
This ability to exercise the discretion of silence is however criticised as being complicit with inhumane actions. This criticism was expressed recently in an article in The Guardian (27th November 2003), which accused a UK NGO of being 'silenced' by its American counterparts for criticising the occupying forces in Iraq of breaching the Geneva Convention. Whether or not the NGO in question was 'silenced' as alleged, the article demonstrates that silence on humanitarian issues of such importance can create suspicion of a lack of independence and can undermine the credibility of the humanitarian organisation.
Solidarity Approach: Abandon Neutrality
Other organisations acknowledge that all humanitarian aid is by nature political and argue that the need to resolve conflict, the underlying causes of poverty and human rights abuses requires them to take a political stand on key issues. These NGOs, broadly termed 'solidarists', take sides and abandon neutrality as well as rejecting consent as a prerequisite for intervention. For those, such as Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), who advocate a more political humanitarianism, political positions must derive from a conscious decision to employ humanitarian action as an integral part of an international public policy to mitigate life-threatening suffering and protect fundamental human rights in violent conflict.
Many NGOs have adopted a political stance and, to a certain extent, this is as much a way of addressing root causes of conflict and poverty as re-asserting their independence and separate identity from Northern governments. As stated by the Director General of Norwegian People's Aid (NPA): '[NPA] is independent, but it is not neutral and impartial; instead its work is grounded in the idea of solidarity with the people it helps.'
Utilitarian Approach: Operational Neutrality
While many NGOs recognise that their interventions are not neutral, some still subscribe to the belief that operationally, in terms of facilitating actual programming, NGOs must present themselves as neutral actors. In order to maintain the space of neutrality NGOs have gathered together to create voluntary guidelines for operating in conflict zones.[2] As was and is the case in Sudan, preserving operational neutrality can be crucial to humanitarian access.
Redefining Neutrality: The Rights-Based Approach
Preserving 'operational neutrality', however, does not address the root problems underlying the challenges to NGO neutrality. Whilst it allows NGOs the ability to continue operating in certain areas of conflict, the greater questions regarding the political nature and impact of humanitarian programming remain unresolved. Without addressing these challenges to the moral high ground which made the NGO movement so strong in the 1980s, NGOs will continue to lag behind on what is becoming an increasingly state-dominated agenda of humanitarianism.
Is the current debate over the rights-based approach an attempt to clarify the issue of neutrality and to create greater objectivity and clarity in how NGOs operate and by what criteria? One of the purposes of the rights-based approach is to preserve a 'classicist' interpretation of neutrality and impartiality by developing objective standards that can be applied impartially. However, unlike UN agencies and the ICRC which base their actions on international humanitarian law, NGOs are struggling to determine the basis for the rights on which they work and have yet to adopt a credible process of developing the law as it currently stands. NGOs are not always clear about what they mean; do they refer to rights as ideas which may eventually become rights? Or do they take existing legal frameworks such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as their basis?
Conclusion
The political nature of humanitarian aid, coupled with the new context of insecurity, militarisation, privitisation and the merging of developmental and security aims, has created dilemmas that will plague NGOs' humanitarian programming for years. How NGOs adapt themselves and make the decision whether to abandon or adapt humanitarian principles will be a crucial factor in the future positioning of NGOs within the emerging system of global governance.
Notes and References
1. See Sphere Project Principles of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Response Programmes. See also the 'Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards' from the Sphere Project and the People in Aid Code (available online at www.peopleinaid.org).
2. These initiatives have included the Providence Principles in 1993 formulated at the Humanitarianism and War Project at Brown University, the 1994 Mohonk Criteria for Humanitarian Assistance in Complex Emergencies and the 1994 International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movements Code of Conduct.
Duffield, M. (2001) Global Governance and the New Wars. New York: Zed Books.
Slim, H. (2003) 'Humanitarianism with Borders? NGOs, Belligerent Military Forces and Humanitarian Action.' Paper for the ICVA Conference on NGOs in a Changing World Order: Dilemmas and Challenges (available online at www.jha.ac/articles/a118.htm)
Plattner, D. 1996 'ICRC Neutrality and Neutrality in Humanitarian Assistance,' In International Review of the Red Cross, no. 311, 30 April.Further Information
People in Aid, an international network which aims to promote good practice in the management and support of aid personnel, has recently published two handbooks: Understanding HR in the Humanitarian Sector and Enhancing Quality in HR Management in the Humanitarian Sector. The former includes material on the changing nature of conflict and of the humanitarian sector, including the implications of recent conflicts such as Afghanistan and Iraq and relations with the military. Visit their website www.peopleinaid.org or email info@peopleinaid.org
More Information on NGOs
More Information on NGOs in the Field
More Information on the Credibility and Legitimacy of NGOs
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C ß 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
