 
|
 |
3.2 Humanitarian Principles Underlying Negotiations With Armed Groups
Humanitarian negotiations are a tool to enable, facilitate and sustain humanitarian action, and therefore they must be undertaken in accordance with the three core principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality that underpin all humanitarian action (Box 1). 17
Box 1 - Fundamental principles of humanitarian action
Humanity: Human suffering must be addressed wherever it is found, with particular attention to the most vulnerable in the population, such as children, women and the elderly. The dignity and rights of all victims must be respected and protected.
Neutrality: Humanitarian assistance must be provided without engaging in hostilities or taking sides in controversies of a political, religious or ideological nature.
Impartiality: Humanitarian assistance must be provided without discriminating as to ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political opinions, race or religion. Relief of the suffering must be guided solely by needs and priority must be given to the most urgent cases of distress.
|
These three fundamental principles have their origins in operational humanitarian practice, and are reflected to varying degrees in the Charter of the United Nations, International Humanitarian Law, and International Human Rights Law. These principles have also been incorporated into voluntary codes of conduct and organizational mission statements guiding humanitarian agencies and donors. 18
Additional principles complementing these three core tenets of humanitarian action include: Dignity; Respect for Culture and Custom; “Do No/Less Harm”; Operational Independence ; Sustainability; Participation; Accountability; Transparency; and Prevention. 19
3.2.1 Using Humanitarian Principles to Frame Humanitarian Negotiations
Humanitarian principles help to frame humanitarian negotiations in three ways:
- by providing a source of guidance for humanitarian negotiators on how negotiations should be undertaken;
- by defining boundaries within which to seek agreement (they set limits to what humanitarian actors can commit to during negotiations); and
- by providing a set of criteria for developing options for consideration by the negotiating parties.
Based on these three modalities, Table 2 suggests ways in which the humanitarian principles mentioned above can be used to guide the actions of humanitarian negotiators.
Table 2
Humanitarian principles and what they mean for humanitarian negotiations
|
What the principle means for humanitarian negotiations …
|
| Core Humanitarian Principles |
Humanity |
-
Humanitarian negotiators should clearly communicate to the armed group the paramount interest of their organization(s) as being to alleviate human suffering;
-
Armed groups that have limited or no knowledge of the motivations and objectives driving humanitarian action may be suspicious of the motives of humanitarian actors. They may believe that assistance is being provided to opposing groups, or that all the assistance should go to their group, rather than to civilians that are most in need;
|
|
Neutrality |
- Humanitarian negotiations should never endorse, or be perceived to endorse, a particular political aspiration or objective of the armed group;
- Negotiation does not mean acceptance, and humanitarian negotiators must make clear that by entering into negotiations they are not endorsing or according any recognition to the armed group;
|
Impartiality |
- Humanitarian negotiators must not enter into an agreement with the armed group that would constrain humanitarian action such that it is no longer delivered on the basis of need alone;
- Humanitarian negotiators cannot accept conditions that the armed group may wish to impose restricting beneficiaries of assistance and protection to those within certain ethnic, political or religious groups;
|
Additional Principles of Humanitarian Action
|
|
- Humanitarian negotiators must ensure that humanitarian actors retain operational control and direction of humanitarian activities in any agreed outcome (for example, on issues such as decision-making regarding beneficiaries; modes of assistance etc.);
|
|
Participation |
- Wherever possible, the perspectives of the beneficiary population should be incorporated into the substance and process of negotiation;
- In many cases, representatives of groups that humanitarian organizations seek to assist may be unable to participate directly in the negotiations, due to logistical constraints; difficulties in identifying legitimate representatives; and security concerns (e.g. possible reprisals by armed group);
|
Accountability |
- Humanitarian negotiators and their parent organizations are accountable—to those they seek to assist, to their governing bodies as well as to their donors—for any outcomes to which they may agree in the course of negotiations;
|
Transparency |
- Humanitarian negotiations should be undertaken in a transparent manner, with honesty, openness and clarity about the purposes and objectives of the negotiations. By conducting negotiations in this way, humanitarians will be less likely to be perceived as being partial to a particular group.
|
|
- Humanitarian negotiators should strive to “do no harm” or to minimize the harm that may be inadvertently done simply by humanitarians being present and providing assistance (e.g. where aid is used as an instrument of war by denying access or attacking convoys).
- Humanitarian negotiations, and any agreed outcome between humanitarian organizations and armed groups, should at a minimum not cause harm or result in reduced protection of civilians.
|
Respect for culture and custom
|
- Humanitarian negotiators should strive to understand local customs and traditions to ensure that humanitarian work can be conducted with respect for local values to the extent that they do not conflict with internationally recognized human rights (e.g. some interventions require particular sensitivity to local customs, such as dealing with victims of rape). (See Section 4.4).
|
Case Study: Two dimensions of impartiality
REDUCTION IN PERCEIVED IMPARTIALITY OF WFP IN ANGOLA : In Angola during 1993/1994, constraints on access by WFP assessment teams to UNITA controlled areas resulted in a greater percentage of food aid being delivered to government-controlled areas (where WFP had more access). WFP subsequently faced accusations of impartial delivery of assistance in favor of the government controlled areas. UNITA asserted that these areas were better able to withstand UNITA advances due to the food aid, and this resulted in tensions between UNITA and WFP, which at times manifested itself in blockage of road convoys and incidents of shooting at aid aircraft. 20
ARMED GROUP PERCEPTION OF IMPARTIALITY: In Colombia , the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC) armed group has expressed criteria for accepting contacts with humanitarian organizations, which include impartiality, neutrality and confidentiality. This represents a rather unique example of an armed group that is well informed of humanitarian principles and monitors the actions of humanitarian organizations that may wish to engage with the armed group. 21 |
By providing limits beyond which humanitarian negotiators cannot compromise (“No Pass” limits), humanitarian principles can actually strengthen the position of the humanitarian negotiator, enabling him/her to use the principles to set clear limits to the other parties' demands. For this purpose, humanitarian negotiators can invoke the fundamental principles, and could argue, for example:
“Our organization cannot agree to distribute food only to camps under your control, because, as you know, we provide assistance wherever there is a need”
When using humanitarian principles and policies as “No Pass” limits beyond which humanitarian agencies cannot trespass, it is important that humanitarian negotiators communicate these limits in non-threatening language and tone, and clearly communicate the reasons why the organization cannot agree to operate outside these principles.
In addition to establishing “No Pass” limits to negotiations, humanitarian principles provide a basis for developing options to be considered by parties to the negotiations. Continuing with the example above, an option for agreement could be presented as follows:
“Our organization cannot agree to distribute food only to camps under your control, because, as you know, we provide assistance wherever there is a need [USE PRINCIPLE TO DEFINE BOUNDARY]. What we can do, however, is to include the civilians in those camps in our needs assessment … and that will ensure that those most in need in the camps also can be helped.” [USE PRINCIPLE TO GUIDE OPTIONS]
Case Study: Communicating Humanitarian Principles
“Regarding Burundi , during a first meeting called by the Henry Dunant Center in Geneva in 1999, gathering representatives of the Burundian army, opposition forces and the humanitarian community, it became clear that in order to gain greater access to populations caught up in conflict zones, humanitarian agencies should first explain their roles and mandates. Until then, none of the [warring] parties understood clearly the role or the activities of the humanitarian community or the UN in Burundi . The Burundian army accused the UN of “feeding the rebels”, while the opposition forces accused the UN of being too close to the government and for distributing aid only where the government dictated. The opportunity to explain the programmes and assert the neutrality of the international humanitarian community was a key breakthrough in this meeting.” 22
|
________________________
17 The guiding principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality were adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in resolution 46/182 (19 December 1991).
18See, for example: International Red Cross Movement and NGOs, The Code of Conduct of the International Red Cross Movement and Non-Governmental Organisations in Disaster Relief (1994). Available through the Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response (SCHR).
19These principles are drawn from: The Code of Conduct of the International Red Cross Movement and Non- Governmental Organisations in Disaster Relief (1999) and OCHA documents on principles and policies for humanitarian engagement.
20Source: World Food Programme (WFP), Review of WFP Experience in Securing Humanitarian Access: Compilation of Past Practice ( Rome : World Food Program, 22 November 2000).
21Source: Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (CHD), Humanitarian Engagement with Armed Groups: Colombian Paramilitary (Geneva : Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, October 2002).
22Source: World Food Programme (WFP), Review of WFP Experience in Securing Humanitarian Access: Compilation of Past Practice, 2000.
|
 |
