Comments on: If You Bend Over Far Enough…

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:17:04 +0000

Rob - a quick response: http://humanitarianrelief.change.org/blog/view/provocation_are_aid_agencies_too_cowardly Michael

By: Toaf

Toaf — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:07:25 +0000

Thanks, Rob. Yes, I see the distinction you are making between the aid groups and the lobby. I’d assumed that advocacy had been taking place, especially given that the ICC reckoned it obtained some its info from aid groups. It’s very sad.

By: Rob Crilly

Rob Crilly — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:34:52 +0000

Many of the best aid agencies have huge advocacy operations.

By: Rob Crilly

Rob Crilly — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:32:23 +0000

Thanks Toaf,
I think the problem here is that advocacy had been left to organisations with an anti-Khartoum agenda, producing a polarised debate that has not got us very far. Had the aid agencies engaged in advocacy – as they often do – the debate would have been far less polarised and there would have been a better chance of a positive outcome.
It also would have allowed the NGOs to distance themselves from the pro-ICC lobby by pursuing a different, humanitarian agenda. Instead they were probably fearful that publicly opposing the push for the ICC – because of the inevitable consequences for the humanitarian operation – would have led to accusations they were Khartoum sympathisers. B
The chose to remain silent, thus failing to promote an alternative to the ICC, and were expelled anyway.

By: Toaf

Toaf — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 04:59:38 +0000

Rob, the missus and I were discussing this last night. We reached the conclusion – as you have stated here – that the aid agencies set themselves up to be expelled by Khartoum by engaging in advocacy.
The question is, was providing humanitarian assistance without advocacy a sufficient response to the situation? Is it sufficient to seek to address the symptoms of the crisis? Or does there need to be advocacy if there is to be some sort of political resolution which in turn may ease the causes of the humanitarian crisis? (Sorry if that’s a little garbled.)
This assumes, of course, that advocacy does indeed lead to political pressure and then to political action. The problem in this case is that the eventual political action hasn’t been productive. Could the aid agencies have known this? I suspect they could have. What alternative did they have?
Then there’s this point that you raise: “UN officials reckon as much as a third of some aid agencies’ budgets are raised from donations related to Darfur. The crisis is supporting countless jobs in headquarters around the world and many operations in other less glamorous hot spots. Darfur is their cash cow.”
I hadn’t though of it that way. As if the whole thing wasn’t tragic enough already.
Another insightful and interesting post, Rob. Much appreciated.

By: Anstis

Anstis — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 15:44:46 +0000

Dear Rob,
I’ve been reading your posts with great interest over the past few days.
Just a quick question in regards to this one. Aid organizations, from what I understand, can express no political opinion. They simply deliver aid while absorbing the shocks this may cause in the political structures of the states they are working in.
In the case of Darfur, perhaps they should have foregone this typical approach – as you say – and stood up to the government. How could they do this while maintaining their reputation abroad and within the aid community? Understandably, standing up to Khartoum would have had them kicked out anyways – except they would be blamed for the outcome not Khartoum. Now, at least, Bashir continues to play the part of the criminal.