How to protect humanitarian workers? | Conor Foley | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Recent Discussion
This entry came about from a conversation with a friend that I had on facebook in response to the following article http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm
Query: How about the UN recruiting local workers in the country(ies) of origin and try and involve them in the work that the UN is doing in that area? The theory being that the presence of the indigenous population with the aid workers from elsewhere could make the UN’s involvement seem less like an outside force, allow the locals to see what processes are going into the various operations and train them up in sustainable and transferable skills that will be useful for them way after the UN has left. Just a suggestion.
Reply: Well the vast majority of UN staff in most countries are locals, indeed actually the vast majority of all staff working in the international development sector (in developing countries) are locals. The point though about ensuring that the interventions and trainings are sustainable is valid. However in order to do this training you need to have the people with the relevant skills. Often the best way of doing this is to use international staff with many years experience of the sector. Sustainability is a key aspect of what the international development community says it does.
However most organisations are not aiming to ensure that they essentially do themselves out of a job. Therefore I think we can legitimately question the extent to which organisations including the UN have a real commitment to sustainability, in the sense that they wish to do themselves out of a job by improving local conditions. I think this latter point is a good one for discussion, but back to the original point there is a conflict between giving people the skills they need and having the people on the ground to provide these skills
On the point about allowing locals to see what work is being done. I agree 100% on this! And yes organisations such as the UN can be very opaque. But for an example of some real good work ensuring that humanitarian organisations are accountable to the people they serve have a look at http://www.hapinternationa
Query: OK - if the assumption is that the UN doesn't want to "do themselves out of a job" then there's the problem! If the organisation is not looking to leave then it will probably structure its activities to prolong its involvement in a given area. If the UN stays for too long it could be seen as an imperial (western) force and there is where resentment might grow in the local populous. If this is the case then shorter missions with a tighter mandate could be a solution.
Reply: The first part of your statement, yes I agree with (btw I am not a great fan of how the UN operates or its opaqueness or the fact that its labyrinthine bureaucracy means it takes for ever to get things done, but I do though think that a lot of what is does is necessary).
I am not sure that the solution is shorter missions, because then there is an accusation of cutting and running, and the other thing to remember about the UN, is that it is an international civil service. Its job is to give often long term support to government, and basically help government rebuild after war.
So short term missions would run contrary to what the UN exists for in many countries. However I do think that accountability, working to make the UN an open institution and making it much more accessible and approachable especially to the man on the street, to government, to everyone involved is important.
No comments:
Post a Comment