World Humanitarian Summit: Special online discussion event on the principle of neutrality, 8 January 2015

Transcription

1 World Humanitarian Summit: Special online discussion event on the principle of neutrality, 8 January 2015 Event report Speakers: Dustin A. Lewis, Senior Researcher, Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC) Jérémie Labbé, Head of Project for Principles Guiding Humanitarian Action, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Ingrid Macdonald, Director, Geneva and Humanitarian Policy, Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) Dr Kamel Mohanna, Founder and President, Amel Association International Carsten Völz, Humanitarian Director, Oxfam International Host and moderator: Angharad Laing, Executive Director, PHAP Presentation on the history of the principle of neutrality The event was opened by a presentation by Dustin A. Lewis on the principle of neutrality from a historical and legal perspective. 1 Panel discussion Jérémie Labbé began by pointing out that the reason why the discussion around neutrality is important for the ICRC is because it remains a contested, misunderstood, misused, and instrumentalized humanitarian principle. Furthermore, there is an irrefutable need to promote understanding of the value of neutrality in humanitarianism. The humanitarian principles can be divided into a hierarchy with the principle of humanity at the top. Neutrality is not a moral value, or an end in itself, but a practical tool, serving the principle of humanity. It has the purpose of gaining trust and acceptance from the parties to a conflict and victims, in order to facilitate access to vulnerable populations. 1 A recording with the full presentation is available at 1

2 An internal ICRC study on the application of humanitarian principles in the field found that neutrality lies in the eyes of the beholder the perception of belligerents in a conflict of the ICRC s neutrality was what mattered most on the ground. Maintaining such a perception required transparency and communication with the parties to the conflict in order to convey the ICRC s consistency and predictability in its actions. In order to address the needs of populations, the principle of neutrality may need to be balanced against other principles. For instance, in some instances, strictly adhering to the principle of neutrality may prevent an organization from addressing the root causes of suffering, while at the same time it may allow the organization to gain immediate access to those in need. Jérémie argued that neutrality has a price. Neutrality, and its corollary of independence, requires the ICRC to often rely upon its own means of transportation and logistics; and to engage in lengthy negotiations with donors on important details such as labeling of assistance kits, which can have a major effect on the organization s perceived neutrality. Carsten Völz began by mentioning that humanitarian actors increasingly face challenges when working in situations of armed conflict, including the fact that humanitarian workers are increasingly seen as targets for armed actors. This has serious implications on an organization s ability to access affected people. Regarding the interconnection and hierarchy among the humanitarian principles, he mentioned that Oxfam also regards humanity as the overarching principle, supported by the others. Neutrality is seen as a practical tool to enable impartiality and independence in conflict settings. Carsten mentioned that Oxfam takes no issue with the application of military neutrality, but believes in speaking out as a form of addressing the causes of suffering. On the importance of neutrality for the long term, he gave the example of organizations in Northern Pakistan that had received counterterrorist funding to carry out humanitarian relief. There were consequences for these organizations when they later started operating in Syria, as some of the Islamic State fighters were recruited from the Taliban. 2

3 Poll question: How can humanitarian organizations not appear as taking sides when they are in close relations with a government, a foreign army, a peacekeeping mission or an armed group? What should be the appropriate amount and types of collaboration between humanitarian organizations and political and military players during a conflict? According to which modalities? The origin of funding must be made clear which should be apolitical. Humanitarian Advisor (Switzerland) Have in the most possible way not to interact with foreign armies unless to provide assistance to its personnel. IHL Lead, Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement organization Humanitarian organizations must appear in the same space between all sides...it s really hard but we must do it. Volunteer, INGO (Syria) Power structures shall not affect adherence to humanitarian principles during conflicts. Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs For WORC, the emblem, funds sources and impartiality by engaging both ends would be ideal here. Volunteer, Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement organization Open dialogue with all those involved is a prerequisite to efficient action. It does not mean however that you need to establish a "close relationship". It is a question of balance and an exercise in humanitarian diplomacy. Speak with the devil if needed Founder/Director, INGO (Switzerland) Conflicts must be solved according to the interfaith dialogue. Volunteer, INGO (Poland) Appropriate amount and type of "collaboration" depends very much on the context and the mandate of the organization, but we should adhere to key principles of IHL, codes of conduct and do-no-harm, Guidance to the field staff should be clear, forthcoming Technical Coordinator, INGO (Spain) The humanitarian agencies should deliver aid based on their mission and values. Deputy Director, INGO (Kenya) Interaction needs to be related to either the adherence to humanitarian principles and IHL by the parties themselves or in terms of negotiation for access by the humanitarian actor to the affected population. Graduate Student (UK) Transparency and accountability of funding sources and uses; clarity on expectations... Emergency Response Personnel, INGO (Kenya) Reputation and history of the organization are important and any type of collaboration can be acceptable if is transparent to all parties involved. Assistant Professor (Pakistan) Has to be context specific - no one size fits all answer. Humanitarian Affairs Representative, INGO (Switzerland) The role of OCHA in facilitating and organizing principled Civil Military Coordination fora and facilitating negotiations with all stakeholders consistent with humanitarian principles is pivotal. Humanitarian Affairs Specialist, UN organization (Italy) 'Integrated UN mission' is a structure which very much undermines the prospect of OCHA and UN agencies appearing neutral / impartial / independent. Consultant, INGO (Canada) Yes, this is an impediment to aligning actions with goals & objectives. Director, Think Tank (US) 3

4 Civil military coordination provides a necessary forum for such dialogue and lays out principles and guidelines on exactly when and how to engage with military and other political organizations when in the field. Role of OCHA as the custodian is critical. Humanitarian Reports Officer, UN organization (Kenya) We need to have a very clear agenda to define our relationship and limit the inputs of the conflict parties in our aid package. Specialist, INGO (Cameroon) This is a biased question to help organizations financed by one conflict side (e.g. NATO states) to maintain their "outside perception" to be neutral. Humanitarian Policy Advisor, INGO (Germany) Each operation is unique there will never be a cut and dried solution. Admin Assistant, UN organization (Switzerland) Ingrid Macdonald mentioned that the Norwegian Refugee Council, in its Tools for the Job report, has assessed how humanitarians have applied the principles on the ground, from an operational perspective. The NRC has found that there remains much misunderstanding among humanitarians regarding the principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence, along with their integration into operations. However, she pointed out that predictability in organizations behavior with actors and communities, timeliness of operations, and delivering on promises is fundamental for an effective response, alongside application of the principles. Regarding the hierarchy of the humanitarian principles, Ingrid agreed with the previous speakers, as neutrality and independence are tools for acceptance and shaping perceptions of parties to a conflict. However, there may be trade-offs between the different principles in the field. Humanitarian workers on the ground need to be given the appropriate tools for understanding the principles in order to be able to make such decisions. Additionally, globalization means that what an organization does in one context can reflect elsewhere: instant communication and social media means that their practices are publicly known. Consistency in implementation thus becomes an important matter it gives an organization a better basis for conducting hard negotiations with belligerents on the ground. Humanitarian actors are often sought to be politicized by belligerents because of the value of the services they provide. But advocacy does not make actors politicized, it makes them responsive. She asked if it is enough for humanitarian actors to only provide blankets and food, or if it is also necessary to address issues of protection and advocacy. Ingrid argued that donor contracts are pushing organizations to follow the political goals of governments, especially in the area of counterterrorism, posing a challenge to neutrality and 4

5 I would rather argue that organizations must not choose neutrality as the first principle. Rather, it should only be a last resort when an operation becomes impossible without it. Otherwise, advocacy should be preferred for seeking permanent solutions. Humanitarian Advisor (Switzerland) Not all humanitarian organizations are DESIGNED to be neutral. Do we deny people in need the help from those organizations by requiring them to be neutral? Instructor, Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement organization Most depend on who owns the piper ''calls the tune''... Volunteer, Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement organization Definitely challenging, but transparency is best Representative, INGO (US) It's truly challenging for humanitarian organizations to prove that they are neutral especially if they are government funded. Field Team Leader, INGO (Kenya) Many organizations claim neutrality but don't actually maintain the posture and behavior and practices which ensure that they are neutral. We shouldn't be surprised when parties to conflict consider humanitarians to be suspect. Director, INGO (US) Being 100% neutral is not in the interest of people in need of humanitarian assistance Grants Officer, charitable foundation (Nigeria) Neutrality is an effort between human advantages and disadvantages. Volunteer, INGO (Poland) In the field, my experience is that too many NGOs give only lip service to the principle of neutrality; there is much work to be done in this regard Manager, INGO (Afghanistan) If they are truly committed to humanitarian work, they have to examine themselves because a priori (at a glance) it is difficult to judge them. Free-lance consultant (Republic of Congo) Only few organizations and it depends on the basis of areas. Assistant Professor (Pakistan) 5

6 Yes funding impacts on the broader mission Director, Think Tank (US) Certain contexts call for a stretching of the principle of neutrality in order to meet the needs of affected people but it should not be the norm. Disclosure of challenges faced and a sharing of lessons learnt with other actors should be encouraged. Humanitarian Reports Officer, UN organization (Kenya) The principle of neutrality cannot be 'stretched'. It is almost entirely an issue of perception. If the needs of the population require abandoning neutrality, organizations should make a choice and be transparent about it. Humanitarian Advisor, Donor Agency (UK) Better communication to let all understand your action may improve perceptions. Specialist, INGO (Cameroon) How should humanitarian UN behave, when the political UN is not neutral in a conflict? Humanitarian Policy Advisor, INGO (Germany) Neutrality is a means to an end, so it works in different ways for different actors. Manager, NGO (UK) impartiality. These contracts prevent organizations from accessing certain populations and locations, as listed terrorist groups might benefit from their response. Dr Kamel Mohanna agreed with previous speakers that neutrality is not an end in itself. There is on the one hand passive neutrality, the decision not to take action in a particular conflict, and on the other hand relative neutrality, which means deciding to take action in some instances but not in others. Moreover, neutrality is often seen as the absence of a political position but he maintained that all action is implicitly political. When the ICRC decides to start an operation in a given country, it constitutes a political decision. For international humanitarian organizations, it is easy to claim neutrality when deciding to operate in a given country. Conversely, local organizations have to consistently engage with all affected people in a professional manner. Because civil wars have become more common than international conflict, it has become even harder to uphold neutrality. Dr. Mohanna gave the example of when the ICRC and the Red Crescent went into Syria, they needed to apply for Syrian visas, thus undermining their neutrality in the eyes of the opposing factions. 6

7 It depends again. In some cases, wars might ne a necessity to save people from oppressive regime or warring parties, and at the same time resources might be required to save those who are not party to the war. Humanitarian Advisor (Switzerland) It is perceived as taking sides or having the possibility to provide "better" services to this side! IHL Lead, Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement organization The fact that it is a problem does not mean that it should not be done. It just means it is problematic and needs to be considered in accepting. Instructor, Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement organization It can lead to mistrust by the conflict actors and weigh on our independence. Volunteer, Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement organization Not a problem as long as (a) remain principled and don't adapt your programming to donors' wishes and (b) take money from all parties to the conflict. Regional Representative, NGO network (Jordan) This would result in keeping some crimes committed by certain side in the dark. Cofounder and Senior Officer, forum (Libya) It is unethical, but on the other side, funding is never enough, every penny is fundamental and wars are sometimes inevitable. Intern, UN organization (Egypt) By accepting money from a party involved in the war, the humanitarian actor may unintentionally be conferring legitimacy upon that party. Research Officer, donor agency (UK) It surely creates problems on a principles level, but it is hard to say that such support should always be rejected regardless of circumstances. Intern, INGO (Switzerland) 7

8 My initial reaction is yes, unless it can be transparent and money is received from all actors. Representative, INGO (US) It's a slippery slope for humanitarian actors and where their donor funding come from. Would the US be considered a country that wages war on other nations? If yes, my second question is, how many humanitarian actors receive money from the US government? Field Team Leader, INGO (Kenya) Although government funds might not affect our neutrality, they most certainly affect others' *perception* of our neutrality. Manager, INGO (Afghanistan) Taking such funds will definitely compromise both the humanitarian principles of neutrality and independence. Emergency Response Personnel, INGO (Kenya) It is a problem, though in a globalized world there are so many actors who are contributing to conflict (even if not directly taking up arms) that it is difficult for large humanitarian organization to not take money from any of these actors. Senior Humanitarian Advisor, INGO (Switzerland) It compromises operational independence and ability to effectively serve the people in need, especially if the funds come with strings attached. Humanitarian Reporting Officer, UN organization (Kenya) It depends on conditions of receiving the money - need to ensure ability to use the money in accordance with principles (need based, not being perceived to take sides, etc.). Senior Officer, Red Cross and Red Crescent movement Dustin Lewis pointed out that under international humanitarian law (IHL), neutrality is not a requirement for a legitimate offer of humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian organizations are increasingly following the practice of denunciating serious violations of IHL, but there may be operational setbacks for doing so. On the source of an organization s funding and its perceived neutrality, the speaker stated that it is a live question. It is seen in the case of Afghanistan, where the UK and USA are parties to the conflict yet at the same time major donors to humanitarian organizations. This raises political, moral, and ethical questions. Jérémie Labbé addressed a participant question regarding how humanitarian organizations can maintain neutrality when they depend on funding from one of the parties to a conflict by reaffirming that independence and neutrality are interconnected: one cannot remain neutral when one relies on funding from an actor that has a stake in the given conflict. In the case of ICRC, 80-90% funding comes from states and it thus needs to engage in lengthy negotiations with donors on the conditions of operation in order to maintain the organization s perceived neutrality. 8

9 That is not possible I think. One cannot remain neutral while taking up advocacy, which has to be critical of at least one warring party. Humanitarian Advisor (Switzerland) As long its actions are always perceived as satisfying all parties involved in the conflict. IHL Lead, Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement organization Advocacy and neutrality are not mutually exclusive unless the nature of the advocacy demonstrates a lack of impartiality. Legal Advisor (Switzerland) Neutrality and advocacy are complementary tools. Do not hesitate to speak out and make your actions well understood. Founder/Director, INGO (Switzerland) They can. Yet, while it is possible for them to remain truly neutral, it is likely that they will lose a perception of being such by one or more party. Intern, INGO (Switzerland) Again, transparency is key. If actors are open about their actions, then I believe yes. Representative, INGO (US) The core purpose of a humanitarian organization dictates the agenda of the organization. If an NGO is tasked to feed a community, advocacy is not their scope of work. Field Team Leader, INGO (Kenya) Advocacy on protection of civilians, access, etc. can still happen, but one cannot talk about political and military solutions - leave that to human rights organizations and peacebuilding organizations. Advocacy Officer, INGO (Belgium) There is a huge responsibility that comes with the advocacy and may result in fatal lethal action by violent sides against those who denounce violations... Technical Coordinator, INGO (Spain) Yes - advocacy to allow access to affected populations can (and should) be directed at all parties to the conflict; it need not conflict with the principles of neutrality. Manager, INGO (Afghanistan) 9

10 It is important not to conflate advocacy with taking a side. I can advocate for adherence to international humanitarian law without taking a side. Humanitarian Advisor, donor agency (UK) It depends on which kind of advocacy, but humanitarian advocacy should be a component of the neutral approach. Humanitarian Affairs Specialist, UN organization (Italy) It depends on issue being advocated on and how the message is formulated. Advocacy on general humanitarian issues need not be controversial but a means to raise attention to the rights of affected people. They can complement each other. Humanitarian Reports Officer, UN organization (Kenya) Organizations are recognized voices and we have to advocate ensuring that the voiceless who suffer from rights violation have laws or decisions in their favor. Specialist, INGO (Cameroon) It depends what you are advocating about. The perception thing is a problem though, it means we have no control over our "neutrality" others define it for us. Head of Humanitarian Aid, INGO (UK) He also added that it is necessary to dispel the myth that solidarity is opposed to neutrality. In the ICRC, for instance, there is solidarity for all victims while not siding with any party to a given conflict. Neutrality enables solidarity, because it allows access to vulnerable people in a polarized conflict. Carsten Völz elaborated on the issue of advocacy by questioning whether bilateral advocacy is a sufficient measure to persuade violators of IHL to change their behavior. Instead, this might require public advocacy or action by the Security Council. However, as seen when MSF spoke out on the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War, there may be consequences to the organization s perceived neutrality in the conflict. Humanitarian organizations need to address this question weighing operational concerns and the application or compromise of other humanitarian principles. Carsten saw the matter of funding as particularly complicated, as the availability of funds has not increased in proportion to humanitarian need, given a rising number of emergencies recently. Many organizations consequently find it hard to be selective about donors. One way for organizations to deal with the issue is to accept donations from a party for use only in locations where that actor has no stake. At the same time, there needs to be communication with the parties in the given conflict about the use of such funds to ensure that there is no impact on the organization s perceived neutrality. Local organizations have an even smaller portfolio of donors and the best solution to try to remediate the situation might be by being transparent about what strings are attached when they receive funding. 10

11 Of course, one should not talk to an outfit like ISIS. But in other cases, where negotiation may help, one must take up discussion with all sides. Humanitarian Advisor (Switzerland) Ideally yes, but if they cannot, aid should still be provided as possible. Instructor, Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement organization Talking to all sides ought to be context specific and include sensitivity to communities we aim to support. Graduate Student (United States) Yes but through a representative so as present a joint message. Manager, INGO (UK) It is key to talk to all actors in order to keep neutrality in functionality. Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Yes for confidence and acceptance from both sides Volunteer, Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement organization Not talking to all sides actually shows that you either are not neutral, or at the very least that you do not enjoy the confidence of all parties. Representative, INGO (Jordan) This certainly depends on the goals and targets set by the different humanitarian actors. Answers are to be evaluated on an ad hoc basis and should not "promote" escalation of the conflict. Member of Teaching Staff (Greece) Doesn't a ban on talking to all sides interfere with the principle of neutrality? Director, Nonprofit network (US) Separate from the distribution of aid, it is imperative to speak to all sides to understand the beneficiaries on both sides Representative, INGO (US) In order to maintain the respect and trust all sides give to humanitarian actors, it is vital that each side is given a fair hearing regardless of who is right or wrong. 11 Field Team Leader, INGO (Kenya)

12 Assess the pros & cons and if you have the expertise. Do not do something that would jeopardize the prospects of affected communities getting timely help. Regional Representative, INGO (Switzerland) Which criteria should be used to choose between various sides? Their ideology? We usually do not even ask the question whether we talk to states, even when their behavior is not perfect. Team Leader, forum (US) Yes - only if there is no hidden agenda in protecting their own self-interest Humanitarian Policy Manager, INGO (UK) In general, yes. Humanitarian actors should always be trying to speak to all sides. But this is not always possible for some actors and yet they may make useful contributions to humanitarian aid and/or protection to affected populations nonetheless. Senior Policy Advisor, INGO (UK) Speaking to all sides is part of means to adhere to humanitarian principles; speaking doesn't mean agreeing... Head of Research, consulting firm (UK) Yes, but this is very general, there are different levels and ways of "talking" - we have to keep the humanitarian access open, but not play into the agendas of violent actors. Technical Coordinator, INGO (Spain) Talking to all side makes more justice and fairness and it is a strong call for peace. Team Assistant, UN organization (Jordan) There are circumstances where it may not be possible to talk to all sides involved in armed conflict. Namely where one side of the conflict has no "face" or officials who can be negotiated with. Emergency Response Personnel, INGO (Kenya) Involving all the actors can prolong the conflict resolution process and in some situation it is not possible to include all actors therefore it depends on the situation. Assistant Professor (Pakistan) It s important to analyze and understand the conflict context and think about the impact of the talk, neutrality must be protected. Director, Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement organization Yes but in a coordinated way either through OCHA, and have a common message to avoid sabotaging or contradicting each other's operations. Humanitarian Reports Officer, UN organization (Kenya) Today commitment to neutrality cannot be only to one local conflict, it has to be a global approach as many conflicts are often interlinked and actors are observed globally. Humanitarian Policy Advisor, INGO (Germany) Information is key to respond. Without talking to all sides involved you may not have the correct information to respond or drawback. Admin Assistant, UN organization (Switzerland) On the question of advocacy and neutrality, Ingrid Macdonald argued that it is essential to distinguish between what is political and what is politicized. The parties to a conflict will often try to politicize humanitarian organizations in order to advance their own goals. To avoid damages to their perceived neutrality, organizations need to be transparent. Moreover, she argued that one can 12

13 not plausibly denounce MSF s speaking out on the Syrian chemical weapons as a political act because of the existence of established chemical weapons conventions that have been in place for decades. Only because such action may be used by one party to undermine the other does not mean humanitarian actors do not have an obligation to speak out. It is necessary to not mix the politicization of actions with the denunciation of violations. Jérémie Labbé commented on the results of a poll question that was posed to the participants of the event that showed that showed that a majority of the participants thought that most humanitarian organizations can not credibly claim to be neutral, and should cease claiming to be so. He thought that the result reflects the demand for transparency from organizations about their practices, funding, and the principles they follow. Carsten Völz stated that, in its official humanitarian policy, Oxfam questions whether it can claim to be a neutral organization in conflict settings, because it also has a development mandate that can help shift power dynamics. There are challenges for multi-mandated organizations which claim to be neutral in these scenarios. What needs to be considered is how they interact with the parties to the conflict and their transparency in the process. In cases such as Somalia and Syria, Oxfam has been able to work on both sides of the conflict because it was transparent about its practices, while it highlighted what benefits it could bring to people on the ground. Ingrid Macdonald pointed out that in conflict settings, what one humanitarian organization does, will often affect all others. Therefore effective communication with other actors is needed when an organization decides to cease pursuing neutrality in a conflict. The question of whether to speak out is a great struggle within most organizations. In order to solve it, organizational objectives must be balanced with the needs of the people on the ground. Angharad Laing thanked the panelists and participants for their input, as well as the World Humanitarian Summit secretariat for their partnership. 13