Provocation: Cowardly Aid Agencies

Rob Crilly has the definite advantage (for a journalist) of being in the right place - Darfur - at the right time - now.  I've been more than happy to cite his on-the-ground reports to bolster my own argument that the ICC prosecution was a mistake.

That said, Rob also has his fair share of criticism for aid agencies themselves:

"But hang on a minute. The aid agencies have also been part of the problem. They have been routinely screwed by Khartoum without so much as batting an eyelid. Staff are kicked out, spied on and prevented from travelling to Darfur. They have been smeared in the press and Jewish members of staff accused of being Mossad agents with barely a protest made. The argument has always been that it's better to deliver aid than make a fuss and risk losing access.

Getting kicked out is indeed a disaster. UN officials reckon as much as a third of some aid agencies' budgets are raised from donations related to Darfur. The crisis is supporting countless jobs in headquarters around the world and many operations in other less glamorous hot spots. Darfur is their cash cow.

Of course there is always a tension between delivering emergency aid and advocacy. Standing up and saying what's wrong can jeopardise your ability to help on the ground. But the charities in Darfur chose total silence in the face of non-stop harassment and intimidation."

Needless to say, Rob and I part ways on this one.

The reason that aid agencies only rarely criticized the Sudanese Government is exactly as he describes - a calculation that, at the end of the day, it was important to "deliver aid than make a fuss and risk losing access."

A calculation which, on the whole, has held true for the past six years.

And, if the past week has shown anything, it's the rather dire consequences that follow when such access is lost.

It's also a mistake to equate public reticence with total silence.  Aid agencies have engaged in continuous, behind-the-scenes advocacy on everything from humanitarian access (i.e. bureaucratic impediments imposed by the Sudanese Government) to rape.

(Ah, the irony - my genocide co-blogger Michelle recently responded to my criticisms of advocacy organizations like Save Darfur by pointing out that their public statements are only a small part of what they do, and who they are.  Well played, Michelle, well played.)

As for the claim that aid agencies kept silent out of fear of endangering their budgets - there's cynicism, and then there's cynicism.  Just curious what proof or evidence that Rob has to support this allegation.

Because making sweeping judgments without some sort of proof is rather poor-form.  (Or so I've been told, as regards some of my more recent posts.)

[Image from Flickr- and, credit to GOOD Magazine for the idea of provocations.]