Humanitarian diplomacy

I have not read that publication, thx. I am trying to create a comparative study of the difficulties faced by humanitarians in different regions of the world. Some of these difficulties are due to the way they are perceived (as you of course know), and I am curious to see if this perception is culturally relative...etc.

Hi Dan,

Three things I can think of which might be useful:

1) Larry Minnear's book:
http://www.unu.edu/pg/rights/humanitarianDiplomacy.html

2) The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue's Guide to Humanitarian Negotiation:
http://www.hdcentre.org/publications/humanitarian-negotiation-handbook-securi
ng-access-assistance-and-protection-civilians-a (and their website more
generally: www.hdcentre.org)

3) And the ICRC's work on humanitarian diplomacy:
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/section_humanitarian_diplomacy

B

The blog by patronus analytical may be of use to you:

http://www.patronusanalytical.com

There are some good posts on acceptance.

Also, there is a UN manual on negotiating with armed groups:

http://ochaonline.un.org/humanitariannegotiations/index.html

Kim

Hi Hazel,

Is there any chance that I can consult with you on my research project? My email is beaudoin.dnl@gmail.com.

I hope to hear from you soon...

Best,

Dan

In all humbleness I can offer you a publication I made on the basis of research I did at Harvard Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. 2002- Negotiating access with Armed Non State Actors. You can access both reports at my webssite pax-consultancy.com (but I attached them for your convenience) The publication in HPN is an applied version of the (longer) research report. I noticed (to my delight) that it is also used with the ATHA.

Al the best of success, Max Glaser, Pax-Consultancy

Attached file: hpn-paper-51-humanitarian-engagement-with-ansa.pdf

Hi Daniel

Cool! For such a comparison I would think of Chechnya , Afghanistan and perhaps
Somalia. Mind you though that teh marked differences between ICRC and MSF mandate pose a difficulty in comparison - where contact with belligerents is part and parcel of ICRC's mandate, MSF will only have contact with armed groups when necessary for the purpose of accepting the mission and security guarantees. Nevertheless,sounds like an interesting study

Max thanks.

The fact that the ICRC and MSF have different mandates on humanitarian involvement is precisely what interests me as a comparison. I have found that in my area, the ICRC has succeeded in establishing a significant amount of reputation and acceptance with the local authorities and other stakeholders in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Of course it is not perfect, but the ICRC, in relation to the dozens of other players here, is probably the most efficient in negotiating humanitarian space. This has been my MA thesis, and I wish to expand it to my PhD.

Thanks for you ideas and I hope to work with you in the future

James raises important points on the aspect of 'mandate' re ICRC and MSF.

MSF does not have a mandate - it more or less self-mandated but adheres to IHL as a principle as much as to the concept of humanity and solidarity (that is expressing solidarity by being present and witness suffering of populations in danger). These guiding principles are formulated in the MSF mission and MSF International Charter

There is a problem with the term 'diplomacy'. As such no MSF-er (including me) would defend nor pretend it is engaged in diplomacy or aspire to such. The message and demand of MSF is simple- access to populations in danger to provide assistance.

If the issue is- how to be more diplomatic in delivering difficult messages - such as abuse of aid, denying assistance to people or the deliberate infliction of violence on people - in particular to dictatorial regimes or dictators - well - MSF spoke out on Khalabja in Iraq and was as consequence thrown out by Saddam .... When MSF tried ot get back in Bagdad in 2003 - a team was abducted and thrown into Abu Ghraib (by the to be defeated Saddam millitia). Yet I don't see a way this message could have been delivered to be more palatable to Saddam (the teams got out shaken but safe in the end)

If the term diplomacy is used in the sense of negotiating access - see above- the issue is solely access and respect for the work of humanitarian agencies.

I am not trying to discredit the topic or the initiative - quite the contrary - I am trying to find its rationale

Max`s post raises an interesting question about approaches to achieve policy change. A narrow definition of Humanitarian Diplomacy would imply a formal mandate recognised in IHL as the framework for negotiations.

MSF adopts an activist approach to policy change. It tends to document of inappropriate policy or lack of real commitment impact on the people witnessed by MSF doctors in the clinics, using the notions of proximity and confidentiality.

Daniel if you wish to highlight informal processes, than there may be a contradiction in the way many people understand the term diplomacy. This resonates strongly in the accountability debate: do we frame this in official mandates or do we include the moral responsibilities that come from medical ethics and other (non-legal?) frameworks.

Ok folks, based on the threads of the discussions above (Max, Peter,James)I will try to clarify. I am not camp affiliated, this thesis is the result of my experience. My study will aim to shed more light on this debate in order to try and provide tools to support practitioners in doing their job in a more professional and effectively communicated fashion. Your feedback is very much appreciated:

1. Different organizations have different mandates and mission statements.
2. The ICRC mandated by IHL, the MSF otherwise
3. From my experience, the ICRC's approach is the most successful in achieving humanitarian space: it's discrete interlocutions allows access to the decision making stakeholders in a manner that encourages discussion and negotiation: behind the scenes, discrete and confidential.This is a question of choice, not only of mandate
4. Some other agencies choose the more publicized approach (public/reputational accountability) of naming and shaming, through "in your face" advocacy. Yet others try a more delicate and very difficult to achieve balance between the two..
5.Discrete criticism does not mean collaboration with the authorities.
6. Accountability is a buzz word devoid of meaning in many cases of humanitarian action. At face value, and according to the public policy models that I have used to study the ICRC and UNRWA's activities in the Palestinian territories (or OPT, as you wish), the models merely demand the fulfilling of standards of accountability which are easy to achieve, and that do not challenge the agency. Robert Keohane calls for "epistemic accountability" between the parties, based on an understanding and trust in communication, which is very difficult to achive through campaigns of public lambasting.
7. I contend that this trust is achieved through interface skills of relationship diplomacy, similar to what Linear and Smith call "small D diplomacy".
8. Humanitarian practitioners are not professionals in the classic definition of the occupation (as are doctors and lawyers for example, which are professions in the truest sociological definition of the term). But this doesn't mean that they cannot work "professionaly". Linear and Smith (see above in our threads)speak of the humanitarian craft, of which negotiation is part.