Political and military motivation should be separate from humanitarian
assistance. By definition, humanitariansm requires impartiality, which is not
possible if aid is delivered as a tool to sway opinions, to win support, or to
advance one ideology over another. As an organization that partners first and
foremost with the poor, PIH look to those we serve for legitimacy and also to
determine what is in their best interest. Paul Farmer wrote in 2003:
NGOs
must, therefore, take great care in attending to their mission of service to
the afflicted; because this is the only way they can truly represent the needs
of the victims, and avoid common mistakes and historical irresponsibility. It
is when we ignore legitimacy in our pursuit of “effective” developmental
models, or when we ignore problems that don’t fit our own conceptions of what
is wrong or how to fix it, that NGOs find themselves complicit in the violence
they mean to stop or, at the very least, allay. Pragmatic solidarity is what
allows us to be discerning in which partnerships benefit our patients, and
which ones may harm them.
In truth, no one group or
individual has a monopoly on humanitarian actions or goals. The sheer
devastation of the earthquake, the flattening of infrastructure, logistics
capacity, and medical care, and the loss of key leaders in governmental and
nongovernmental sectors required a huge, multifaceted effort. In the face of
such catastrophe, we could not afford to ignore military assets. If military
cannot by definition be humanitarian actors, they can surely accomplish
humanitarian tasks. In Haiti in those first weeks and months, we needed and I
welcomed all who came with a humanitarian task in mind, a determination to help
achieve the common objective of saving lives and reducing suffering, and a
willingness to get their boots dirty.
Louise C.
Ivers in Haiti: After the Earthquake, p.
306
No comments:
Post a Comment