The political involvement in the context of war: A moral dilemma for NGOS

Résumé du document

Nowadays, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are subject to ethical dilemmas when it comes to accomplishing their goals. When helping people, irrespective of the approach used, it is important to consider both the environment, to adapt oneself to it and the consequences of the aid provided. NGOs have understood the concept of non-neutral humanitarian aid after the end of Cold War. In fact, the end of the Cold War created the issue of armed conflicts. Previously a conflict could rapidly degenerate into a nuclear war and the conflicts in 1990s have been more on an intra-state basis than on an inter-state one. During this period, there has been an explosion of inter-ethnic conflicts that would be too long to enumerate, for example, the issue of Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Therefore one can raise the question of the political involvement in the functioning of the NGOs.

Extraits

[...] It is the main advantage of being impartial. With the end of the Cold War, it seems that the meaning given to the term of impartiality has changed, and that the connotation associated to it can also be positive today, given the fact that some NGOs claim that being neutral and impartial is impossible. One major change at the turning point of the 1990s is that ideological questions were not as important as before, and realism was more valued than idealistic conception, whereas the world was changing quite suddenly (fall of the Wall of Berlin, collapse of the socialist world, USSR and eastern European countries, etc), and more people needed aid. [...]

[...] Humanitarian aid can result in an exacerbation of the conflict and its prolongation. Why? Simply because while supplying the population with its basic needs, NGOs absolve in a way the governments that conduct wars from taking care of the population. They can therefore concentrate their efforts on war, and their responsibility is thought to be merely military. In addition, in times of war, the misuse of aid by parties that carry out the war and the manipulation of this help provided are very common. [...]

[...] Can NGOs let people starve because they are dissatisfied with the political authorities they have to work with? There is no universal answer, each situation being different and appealing for an adapted solution that must result from the comparison of the good done with the harm caused. The duty of intervention, for International organizations as for NGOs, has been previously evoked, but is there a limit to this duty? It may be possible to establish a distinction between quite ‘normal' and extremes cases. [...]

[...] To take an example of an NGO defending the idea of impartiality, one can quote Cornelio Sommaruga, the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross. “Since its inception over 130 years ago, the ICRC has performed a special function in that it plays a dual role in relation to the suffering caused by war. On the one hand, it acts directly on behalf of the victims of armed conflict and internal violence, largely through operations to protect and assist civilians, prisoners, the wounded, the displaced, and various other categories of vulnerable people. [...]

[...] All the aid brought by NGOs was taken by the authorities and distributed to the people on one condition that the people should leave their village enabling the government to execute the resettlement program. The Ethiopian government considered the general silence of the international community and of the NGOs as a sign of approval. That is why silence is not an attitude of neutrality. And there again, being neutral is impossible. Conclusion One general lesson can be drawn from this study: moral imperatives can compete with each other. [...]