A Very Darfur Conundrum

Continuing the theme of over-sharing, at least when it comes to movies - my favorite line in Garden State is towards the beginning, when Natalie Portman simply says "conundrum".  Which is as apt a way as any other to describe the choices and tensions facing aid agencies in Darfur.

As described in the previous post, rumors are flying about whether the Sudanese Government will allow expelled aid agencies back into Darfur.

Senator John Kerry - whose statements while in Khartoum last week gave reason to hope that the Sudanese Government might relent on its expulsion order - recently tried to clarify exactly what he meant.

According to Kerry, it's not that expelled aid agencies will return per se, but their staff might be able to do so:

"In some cases, some of the very same people will go back, wearing a different title, but providing the same service. ... They will work it out."

Let's play out a hypothetical - what happens if the Sudanese Government says it will allow expelled aid workers to return under one guise or another, yet only if they accept additional restrictions?

Or, put another way, how much more autonomy could agencies cede before they become mere political tools of the regime in power?

What happens if the Sudanese Government demands final say over the hiring and firing of staff, or any budget decisions taken by new or returning agencies?  What happens if the Government insists on increased control over program design and implementation?

Humanitarian agencies are bound by the humanitarian imperative: "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."

At the same time, however, humanitarian agencies also strive to be neutral and impartial.  There's quite an ongoing debate around neutrality, but what's at risk here is impartiality as well.

Impartiality, as defined by the Oslo Guidelines, means that "relief of the suffering must be guided solely by needs and priority must be given to the most urgent cases of distress."

And it's hard to be impartial, much less neutral, if the regime in power exercises almost total control over who can work where, and do what.

To a great extent, this is already the case.  According to recent blog post by an aid worker recently expelled from Sudan:

"Every project an aid agency does needs a signed agreement with various government departments. To move into a new town or camp needs another agreement, which can take months to process. The government has taken all our assets, but has not yet agreed to hand them to other agencies. To buy new assets requires even more signed pieces of paper. Importing equipment not available in Sudan takes months to get through customs. All local staff appointments have to be approved by the government, who sit on the interview panel and shortlist candidates."

(For more information about how the Sudanese Government manipulates aid agencies, read the rest of the blog post here.)

The humanitarian imperative would seem to argue that aid agencies accept whatever restrictions the Sudanese Government might apply, if it means they can resume providing aid.

Yet how much more autonomy could agencies cede before they cease to be neutral and independent?

What if the Sudanese Government orders agencies to stop doing any protection work, or stop all projects relating to gender-based violence?  What happens if the Sudanese Government orders agencies to implement programs to encourage displaced persons to return home, regardless of the risk facing the returnees?

And, if new agencies - or returning agencies - agree to additional restrictions, then what does that mean for all other humanitarian agencies in Sudan?  Would they then be bound in the same way, or risk expulsion if they didn't toe the line?

Conundrum.

[Women and children in Kalma Camp, in Darfur - Photo from Pep Bonet / Panos Pictures]