Conflict and sexual violence in the DRC and the independence of humanitarian aid
Kinshasa, DRC, July 2006
Today I attended a very interesting round table discussion convened by the Centre for Civil Society at the London School of Economics and Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) on the independence of humanitarian aid. It was a fascinating session and I will tell you more about it in a minute. But first I want to highlight an article that we have just published in our Article section on Conflict and Sexual Violence in the Democratic Rebublic of Congo (DRC) as it sort of ties in. Anne Aspler and Greg Queyranne from the University of Alberta, Canada discuss the atrocities that are happening in DRC which the international community (ourselves included) continue to ignore. As Anne and Greg explain, a lot of this has to do with the vast quantities of mineral wealth which international corporations want from DRC, including coltan, which is used in mobile phones and laptops. Anne and Greg conclude: “The more we ignore the victims of this brutal tragedy, and the more rapidly we consume high-electronics without demanding that components do not come from war-afflicted regions of the Congo, the less likely these horrors will end. ” Their article is well worth a read—albeit a harrowing one.
So… coming back to that round table discussion I mentioned earlier, this was the starting point of our discussions:
-The politicisation of aid is not a new topic, even though it has taken rather unexpected forms in the past decade, and therefore the debate remains alive. Even if the most glaring issue in humanitarian independence today is its threat of political use, other implications should not be underestimated; these include the perceptions of beneficiaries, advocacy, innovations and ultimately the effective delivery of aid to populations in crisis.
-Increasingly, the humanitarian goal of saving lives is seen as too narrow an aspiration and lacking any greater impact on global solutions for humanity or relevance to global issues such as peace, development or state building. Expectations of humanitarian aid are shifting from relief to encompass broader strategic aims of peace and development. International security is increasingly intertwined with the agendas of development and humanitarianism.
-At the same time, the array of actors involved in humanitarian aid has expanded enormously to include a greater diversity of development-oriented international and national NGOs, civil society organisations and military actors. Many NGOs providing relief are dependent financially on governments and private corporate funds. There is a need to revisit the link between NGO financing and operational independence. Does dependence on government funding equate with the erosion of institutional independence?
-Realities and needs on the ground evolve. In this vein, practice should also evolve to follow these changes in terms of needs and expectations on the ground. This should also be the case with humanitarian action. Is independence a contributing factor to research and innovation in the humanitarian field? What are the limits to such a pragmatic approach?
-In the last few years, the humanitarian debate has revolved around how to improve its efficiency and coherency and how to ameliorate aid by further coordination, professionalism and accountability. Integrated missions, UN humanitarian reforms and the agenda of coherence mark this trend. MSF and a few others humanitarian organisations have raised concerns about the consequences of a highly coordinated assistance system. These multiple initiatives go without necessarily addressing what is at the essence of humanitarian action, which is about quality of response, innovation in practice and relevance of choices to fulfil the primary humanitarian goal: saving lives.
I don’t think we resolved most of these matters but there is plenty further scope for on-going discussions. Rhona