The role of NGO's during wartime: humanitarian vs pacifist ideals

Résumé du document

Since the beginning of modern humanitarian action during wartime (with the birth of the ICRC), the question of the NGOs' role on the battlefields has been the subject of an important controversy, opposing humanitarian to pacifist ideals. Indeed, pacifists' main point was to denounce the fact that, in different ways and especially by humanizing wars, humanitarian action during conflicts indirectly contributed to the perpetuation of war.
As we will see, although the original debate opposing the ICRC to pacifists ended in the "victory" of humanitarian ideals, which were legitimated according to the international opinion, the idea that NGOs can indirectly contribute to war in several different manners is still relevant nowadays and NGOs need to admit it to ameliorate their action and avoid certain pitfalls (II). The humanitarian ideal is based on a fundamental value: respect of human life.

Extraits

[...] In first place, debates concerning humanitarian action and pacifist issues correspond to two different fields. Indeed, in order to understand the different positions of pacifists and humanitarians concerning the role of NGOs during wartime, an important distinction must be kept in mind: pacifist opinions are part of a political debate, which isn't the case of humanitarian issues. As Alain Destexhe wrote: Geneva Conventions' goal was to humanize war, not to discuss about its principle or its utility”. Indeed, contrary to pacifist movements, humanitarian action, although it is peaceful, is not pacifist: it doesn't engage itself in questions of peace and war, which belong to the political sphere. [...]

[...] However, many NGOs (like MSF or Médecins du Monde) are opposed to this concept of “humanitarian war”. Indeed, they believe that this mixing of humanitarian and military is very dangerous: there is a fundamental incompatibility between waging war and providing humanitarian assistance. By working in close cooperation with militaries, NGOs would abandon their core principles (neutrality and/or impartiality) and would be taking side. This is contrary to the humanitarian ideals, which impose not to interfere in the political sphere but to have a more limited objective of creating a “space for humanity” amid conflicts. [...]

[...] Therefore, the pacifist criticism (NGOs contribute to the continuation of war by remaining silent) has been proven wrong by many humanitarian actions for the last 40 years (although the ICRC still respects the principle of neutrality). What's more, by informing the international opinion, NGOs can put a big pressure on governments and therefore lead to a possible evolution towards peace. The issue of “humanitarian Finally, the opposition between humanitarian and pacifist ideals concerning NGOs' work during wartime can be updated in the new context of international intervention. Indeed, recently the concept of “humanitarian has been developed. [...]

[...] recently in Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Rwanda). This pacifist point of view can be illustrated by Einstein: point is not to humanize war but to abolish However, the pacifist opposition to humanitarian action can seem quite unfruitful and lacks of realism. However, humanitarian action is necessary The link between humanitarian action and peace has always been ambiguous and complex. A paradoxical situation seems to be inevitable: humanitarian assistance exists through war, was born during the war. However, pacifists' criticisms toward humanitarian action can be strongly questioned. [...]

[...] Not only are NGOs' interventions necessary to soothe victims sufferings but it can also indirectly contribute to the eventual achievement (on the long run) of peace among human beings, keeping in mind the limits of this goal, by ensuring basic human respect of people in distress and by diffusing values of human solidarity, appeasement, reconciliation, mutual understanding between peoples. Indeed, the humanitarian action of the ICRC and NGOs in general can contribute to a lessening of tensions or at least a prevention of escalation of violence. Therefore, the pacifist criticisms towards humanitarian action mustn't, and haven't, impede humanitarian action, especially since the alternative offered by pacifists (refuse war) unfortunately isn't appropriate in the real world. [...]