Methodology

>

Strategic Criteria

>

Political Neutrality

As far as strategy is concerned, a clear difference must be made between the ideological involvement of an NGO and its impossible neutrality in the field. Let us make these concepts of ideological and political neutrality clear. Ideological neutrality consists in not showing an “a priori” position before intervening in a war-torn country. Once there, political neutrality consists in not taking position for one side of the conflict. In practice, such an objective often remains a wish since the aid brought to victims infringes war logic. Used for ethnic cleansing or military victory, hunger has always been a weapon. In the Middle Ages, warriors were already besieging whole cities; nowadays, third world combatants do not act differently. Theoretically, “natural” famines should not even exist if we are to consider the progress of technology, which allows to go against the hazards of the climate, and the development of transport, which makes it easier for farming surplus to be brought to areas which need them, that is if such areas are not under a military blockade.
 

There are two humanitarian strategies in this regard. The first one aims at supplying “equally” each of the parties of a conflict, even if it implies privileging regions already well supplied, and making assistance plans according to the military forces in presence rather than according to the actual needs. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has often defended this position, and has thus been able to have quite a good national coverage of countries like Sudan or Somalia, which gained it a reputation of impartiality, but compelled it to feed populations that were not always in need. On the contrary, another strategy, less costly for smaller NGOs, consists in trying to fulfil the victims’ needs according to available assessments, but this provokes anger among those who don’t get assistance, and it politicizes humanitarian workers.
 

However, an impossible political neutrality in the field is to be distinguished from ideological involvement. In fact, some so-called “humanitarian” NGOs deliberately choose a side. The “religious” ones are a typical example when they follow a proselyte goal, be it Islamic or Christian fundamentalism. Yet all of them do not have a highly pronounced political bias, including in wars with much denominational aspects. Besides the ecumenical NGOs, which praise for dialogue between religions, some come and help populations in need whatever their individual beliefs.
 

Inversely, some non-religious NGOs take fighting positions, starting with the “humanitarian branches” of the guerrillas, or the “offshoots” of bloodthirsty dictatorships, i.e. GONGOs (Governmental Non-Governmental Organizations) or QUANGOs (Quasi NGOs) which can hardly come to existence when totalitarian regimes try to control the civil society associations. When they realize the impossibility of remaining politically neutral in the field, some charities from developed countries also decide to support openly one side – it was especially true of the Scandinavians in Southern Africa, in Nicaragua and in Sudan. Others stand for the interests of their homeland. In Kampuchea after Pol Pot’s regime fell, for instance, OXFAM (Oxford Famine Committee against Famine) played the role of an informal British embassy in a country whose government was not recognised by the international community. In Kosovo, CARE (Co-operative for American Relief Everywhere) even signed an agreement with the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe), in order to supply information about the Serb troops’ movements. It is beyond doubt that NGOs are sources of intelligence for diplomats, as they are ideally placed on frontlines. These same diplomats, afterwards, quite easily complain about getting their nationals out of “forbidden” areas. NGOs also provide information for the media, who use humanitarian workers and logistics to report on conflicts.