Darfur: Punishment or Aid?

Shortly after the International Criminal Court (ICC) delivered an indictment of President Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese government expelled more than a dozen international humanitarian aid organisations from Darfur, including two sections of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) who were forced to leave in the midst of a meningitis outbreak. With attacks on remaining aid workers increasing, the Sudanese President then declared that all international humanitarian aid organisations must leave the country within the year, further endangering the delivery of food, water, and medical care to millions of people in the war-scarred region.

These expulsions are without a doubt a direct reprisal against groups suspected of being involved with the ICC as well as against governments that support the indictment of President al-Bashir.

With no way of sending investigators to Sudan (which refuses to grant it visas), the Court’s Prosecutor said in 2005 that it would count on cooperation from non-governmental organisations, among other institutions. For their part, aid groups have not always been clear with respect to requests from the court for cooperation or testimony. Many advocated for the creation of the Court, thinking it would contribute to the prevention of war crimes and reconciliation of war-torn societies, and some went so far as to claim they could be “an important source of information.”

At the time, few organisations fully grasped how international judicial processes could come in direct conflict with providing humanitarian aid. Delivering lifesaving assistance to civilians and non-combatants requires constant negotiation with local authorities as well as warring parties, who might be responsible for war crimes. The moment aid workers are perceived as collecting information for possible prosecutions, our ability to reach victims in need is undermined.

An organisation simply cannot provide humanitarian aid and at the same time fight against impunity. While the latter demands that the perpetrators of war crimes be denounced, the former may require the cooperation of those very individuals in order to make aid delivery possible in the zones under their control.

In fact, our teams spend a good amount of their time in Darfur negotiating the movement of ambulances through checkpoints manned by commanders of various factions – rebel, paramilitary or janjaweed, and Sudanese military – some of whom were directly responsible for the displacement of people we were assisting or the wounded we were evacuating.

Though inspired by the same objective of containing the violence of war, humanitarian assistance is not necessarily compatible with punishing of war criminals or, for that matter, the armed protection of civilians. Each have their own distinct and, at times, contradictory logic and processes. The crisis in Darfur highlights the need for aid organisations to acknowledge these contradictions and dispel any doubts about what their priority is and what they will or will not do.

While MSF respects the jurisdiction of the ICC, we have not and will not cooperate with or relay any information to them, a position we have publicly and privately affirmed both to the ICC and to the Sudanese authorities since 2004. Clearly explaining the role of humanitarian aid, as well as demonstrating a commitment to impartiality and neutrality, allows groups to work on both sides of the frontline not only in Darfur but in other conflicts as well.

Of course, independence from the ICC is not enough to avoid being blocked from providing lifesaving humanitarian aid. Recent events highlight that whatever position international groups have taken with regard to the ICC, emergency assistance in Darfur has been held hostage and the people in need of aid are paying the price for political wrangling between the international community and the Sudanese government.

The current standoff illustrates how the different components of international crisis management must be carefully arbitrated, taking into account the impact on the people most affected by a conflict. In 2004, intensive diplomatic pressure on Sudan (including the threat of armed intervention) forced the Sudanese government to open the door to international humanitarian assistance, hence averting famine following the massacres of 2003-4. Now, five years later, international pressure seeking to punish indicted Sudanese officials has led to relief efforts being cut in half, threatening the lives of millions of people.

It is not for humanitarian workers to decide on a hierarchy among humanitarian, judicial, and political or military forms of action. While MSF reflexively tends to make aid our first priority, we are aware that other legitimate approaches are possible.

But contrary to what the ICC prosecutor stated to the UN Security Council in July 2008, the camps for displaced people in Darfur were not the ultimate instrument of “genocide by attrition.” Despite the persistence of insecurity and localized episodes of great violence, international humanitarian aid has succeeded since 2005 in avoiding famine and lowering mortality and malnutrition rates to pre-war levels. These gains are now deeply threatened by the response of the Sudanese government to a politics of judicial punishment that still needs to demonstrate it can serve the interests of victims.

Dr. Christophe FOURNIER, Geneva
President, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) International Council