Non-Subscriber Extract
2010 - The Challenges to Global Security: James ORBINSKI
- Article Tools
22/12/99
James
ORBINSKI PRESIDENT OF THE MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL
The 1990s saw a harsh re-definition of long-held political beliefs. In the
humanitarian field, this resulted in the blurring of the traditional distinction
between foreign policy and humanitarian assistance, with negative consequences
for both. From Kurdistan to Kosovo, Western political leaders have embraced humanitarian adventurism with gusto. Troops have been deployed for "active humanitarian service", more often than not to disguise a dismal lack of political vision in tackling the root causes of the crises at hand. Humanitarian assistance has become a cheap form of foreign policy bringing short-term public relations gains to politicians. This orchestrated confusion has not only dumbed down foreign policy debates, but it has also, and most importantly, cheapened and harmed the very principles Western leaders claim to uphold - impartial and principled humanitarian assistance.
President Clinton launched a humanitarian fundraising appeal for "non-governmental organisations" (NGOs) live on US television as NATO embarked upon active combat for the first time in its history, in the name of 'humanitarian principles'. Once again, the blurring of these distinct avenues - the political and military, versus the humanitarian - was to create a deadly ambiguity on the ground. In Albania, refugee camps built and partly managed by NATO became military targets. The NGOs working closely with NATO saw their ability to work in Serbia severely curtailed. The collaboration between NGOs and one of the warring parties in Kosovo will have serious implications far beyond the region. With such little respect for humanitarian principles in the White House, should we be surprised at the lack of respect for civilians and aid workers on the front line of today's wars, from Sri Lanka to Burundi?
Our insistence on maintaining a strict distinction between humanitarian assistance and political action is not pedantic. Enshrined in the Geneva conventions, humanitarian principles separate humanitarian action from the political and military interests at stake in a conflict for very practical reasons. By being clearly and uncompromisingly neutral and impartial, humanitarian organisations are free to prioritise the interests of the victims, so that civilians can receive protection and assistance according to need, not political expediency.
State humanitarianism is a smoke screen that hides a profound dereliction of political duty. More often than not, states have failed to uphold international humanitarian law, particularly in the face of genocide and crimes against humanity. In Rwanda, up to a million people died in the genocide as the UN Security Council and member states stood by and cut UN troops back from 2,000 to 400. After the worst of the killings were over, international troops were deployed in neighbouring Zaire to deliver aid and smile for the cameras. In Chechnya today, indiscriminate attacks against densely populated areas have been met with the usual posturing of Western leaders eager to placate a fragile Russian state.
The challenge in the new millennium will be to clarify the boundary between political interventions and humanitarian assistance. Governments' new-found love of humanitarian principles must not be allowed to smother the very people they seek to protect.
| |
James ORBINSKI
Click to enlarge picture |
2010
- The Challenges To Global Security | Foreword:
Cliff Beal | King
Abdullah II | Kofi
Annan | Ehud Barak
| Tony Blair | Jacques
Chirac | Bill
Clinton | Sadako
Ogato | James
Orbinski | Romano
Prodi | Lord
Robertson Of Port Ellen | Mary
Robinson | Javier
Solana | Cornelio
Sommaruga | James
Wolfensohn | Postscript:
Edward N. Luttwak | Postscript:
Lawrence Freedman