The role of armed groups in providing aid

From March 2011:

Forced Migration Review is a journal published by the Oxford Refugee Studies Center, as a forum for the exchange of information and ideas amongst those who are displaced and those who work with them. The March issue focused on armed non-state groups (NSAGs), included a great article by researcher Kim Joliffe summarizing the current context in Burma, and NSAGs role in providing aid to civilians. For those interested in a glimpse of the difficult moral and political questions tied up in the work here, I recommend giving it a read:
Dilemmas of Burma in transition

As a humanitarian aid worker, and as a pacifist, I have often struggled with a question Joliffe ask's in the article, "how much does support to NSAGs entrench existing divides and perpetuate conflict? ".

In my work, I regularly interact with members of "non-state armed groups", and I constantly struggle to reconcile my engagement with them with very deeply held principles. In my case, a shared goal of increasing access to health care for civilians in areas controlled by or accessed by these groups, a lack of other means of access, and a separation of their military activities and health activities enables me to justify this engagement. Not lightly.

As noted by Joliffe, NSAGs are frequently playing "crucial role[s] as protectors and providers of humanitarian aid". This is the reality, and a commitment to providing health care for the civilians under their care even perhaps suggests a responsibility to engage with the NSAGs, to ensure the assistance provided is effective and in line with appropriate protocols.

The Geneva Conventions prescribe the right of humanitarian access as an obligation to warring parties, though such access is thus far from guaranteed. The UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance (UN OCHA) recognizes that this access is often not possible without, at the minimum negotiating with, and perhaps even coordinating with NSAGs. They have laid out criteria for when and how it is acceptable to work with armed groups, and even to have armed escorts for aid workers. There is a growing awareness of the need to, and willingness to, negotiate and work with NSAGs. Geneva Call's entire mission is "dedicated to engaging armed non-State actors towards compliance with the norms of international humanitarian law and human rights law".

It comes down to people. The reality is that there are people, in areas controlled by NSAGs, or in territory that is disputed, that do not have access to health services or in need of other humanitarian assistance. In Burma's case, the government of Burma prohibits access to those areas/people from the Burma side, so that means that access must be negotiated through the NSAGs, via the borders. Those people have a right to care.

The counterargument, is that providing care supports the conflict - the opposition parties would loose support if care was not available, that combatants also benefit from the provision of care (medical neutrality requires that you provide care to anyone requiring it), that strengthening the capacity of the medical branches of these political entities has a trickle up effect, in effect strengthening the entire entity.

Basically, we are asked to wager the immediate need for assistance against the uncertain possibility of a conflict-free future. Certainly achieving the latter would alleviate (some of) the need for assistance, but at what cost? And is it really my place to even make that decision? If these communities are asking for assistance, isn't that enough? Or am I expected to weigh their need against those of all possible future conflict-affected persons?

I remember contemplating similar conundrums during my ethics studies, but those were always hypothetical, and this is so very real, though there seems to be an automatic reaction to distance oneself, which is of course a luxury that I have which many of my local colleagues do not.

I do not know the answer to Joliffe's question. I try to do my work mindfully, striving to maintain awareness of the unintended costs and consequences of the straightforward desire to provide aid to communities in need. Too bad its never really that easy. I long ago abandoned any notion of a black and white world, all too aware that most of life happens in those middling shades of gray. And although we are often comfortably cocooned in our bubble wrapped lives, its a reminder that all too often, decisions don't have a clear right answer; we can only strive to find the lesser of two harms, to go forward with open eyes, to engage and respond mindfully, to continually assess and evaluate, to be prepared to be wrong, and to try to do whats right.