In the last year, as long as I have been in the field here in Sudan for the Red Cross, there has been a huge debate on why a humanitarian organisation tries to be neutral where they do their work. The critics I have picked up on could be summarized like this: “They try to be neutral to all the politics and all the different interests of many different people in a region or a country. When we get to know somebody it is pretty hard to not side in anyway with anyone. This seems impossible. Besides, a humanitarian organisation wants to protect the people they want to help, so they have to choose side with them. Then why and how can they claim to be neutral?”
The arguments for and against neutrality and what is called a “humanitarian space” in the society is many and varies according to exemplified situations. But resent developments in The Sudan give a very strong example on why being clearly neutral might matter more than we think. Here is the case:
On the 4.march 2009 the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague announced it indicts President Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan with five acts of Crimes against humanity and two acts of War crimes. Moments after the ICC made their official decision the government of Sudan expelled 13 International nongovernmental organisations (INGOs) and shut down three national nongovernmental organisations (NGOs). They were all humanitarian organisations which the government accused of breaching their humanitarian mandate by, allegedly, aiding the ICC with information.
Whether the organisations did or did not breach their mandate is still disputed, but according to the Sudanese government there is evidence against the organisations that made the government react. The delegates of these organisations has denied any “double agenda” and reacted with frustration not to be able to do their humanitarian work anymore among the poor population in The Sudan.
In the dispute between these parties it is fair to say that the evicted organisations failed to gain or maintain the trust of the Sudanese government. Sudanese government is at the same time accused of refusing/ stalling aid to regions and population groups they wish to control (Alex de Waal 2008). Rightfully or wrongfully accusations of humanitarian organisations is in the final moment up to the hosting state to act on or not act on. In the bottom line the Republic of Sudan no longer wants these organisations help on the humanitarian challenges. Maybe, or in this case clearly, despite the need for humanitarian assistance in the general population. This is especially in Darfur according to the UN.
A significant organisation in field here in The Sudan (the organisation requested to remain anonymous because of the current disputes) who had close partners evicted, even though all confirm to have the strictest policy on full transparency and follow laws and regulations to the letter, says:
“Neutrality as a concept is no longer fully understood and to make partners and authorities fully understand our purpose it is now, more than ever, vital to be completely transparent in everything we do. It is of vital importance to prove that there is no hidden agenda by sharing every single piece of information which isn't contained in the medical secrecy charter linking the patient and his practitioner exclusively. If you have nothing to hide you can show all your cards.''
And by showing all your cards, you have a role to play on the side of any ongoing conflict and can demand full neutrality status in all hostilities. This last point makes field delegates safe, when the rules are upheld by all parties to the conflict, and grants a humanitarian space for the organisations to assist the vulnerable people.
Also in order for the national states to be able to follow the International Humanitarian Law and its four Geneva Conventions the state is obliged to give room for humanitarian assistance, from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), during any armed conflicts on its territory. All the states in the world have ratified (signed) the four Geneva Conventions of 1949.
So it is evident that taking any side with any part, other than insisting on aiding and protecting the vulnerable people on only medical and humanitarian priorities, would easily put your work and sometimes, your life in danger. And further the huge importance to allow the authorities to look into every single thing you do, so that there is no room for distrust, suspicion and/ or false accusations. So sometimes this is not even enough to avoid trouble with the parties to the conflict. Further this shows giving into pressure to take side in the conflict would make such problems very likely to develop. The importance of neutrality becomes clear and there needs to be a fully accepted undisputed humanitarian space in every society where suffering people can survive and maintain their human dignity, regardless of all other conditions. And this humanitarian space in society is operated by the different neutral organisations specialized in their field within humanitarian aid.
The Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement have neutrality as one of its seven fundamental principles and have defined neutrality as follows:
Neutrality
“In order to continue to enjoy the confidence of all,
the Movement may not take sides in hostilities or
engage at any time in controversies of a political,
racial, religious or ideological nature”
Because of the role Red Cross, Red Crescent and Red Crystal has, as an example, it not only gains access to all conflicted areas in the world, but also gains access to all the worlds prisons and camps. Without neutrality this organization would not be allowed in. To me personally this come down to a simple question of motivation; are we here to help or take part in the conflict? There are no both in this sense. Do you see the importance of neutrality?
More news on Sudan and the ongoing Darfur conflict and Mia Farrows hunger strike (Norwegian newspaper):
VG VG VG VG