Advocacy and Darfur seminar - a summary

HPG event: Humanitarian advocacy and Darfur
Wednesday 17 October – ODI offices, 111 Westminster Bridge Road

A really interesting seminar exploring the difficulties of advocacy within an increasingly insecure environment. There were three speakers; Sorcha O’Callaghan, Research Fellow, Humanitarian Policy Group, Brendan Cox, Executive Director, Crisis Action and Rebecca Dale, Independent Policy Advisor on Sudan. I particularly liked Rebecca who spoke with great clarity and had some thought provoking points to make. To see a summary of their comments, read my blog post below:

Sorcha:

• Focussed on the fact that agencies have now become relatively silent compared to three or four years ago when press releases and public advocacy was at its peak. Agencies are increasingly being pulled into political and military discussions. This is undermining their ability to operate and is manifesting itself in the form of growing insecurity for aid workers, increasing problems with access and further restrictions being imposed by the Sudanese government.
• Maintaining neutrality whilst conducting advocacy – not easy when the Sudanese President claims that the aid agencies are the real enemy of the state. A clearer definition is needed of what advocacy is.

Brendan:

• Representing Crisis Action, a campaigning coalition on armed conflict that works behind the scenes to engender change.
• No clear line between humanitarian action and political advocacy. Agencies must be responsible for their actions. He cited the example of MSF denouncing sexual violence – they could not have chosen a more politically sensitive topic.
• The issue is not with principles but with judgement. Judgement in making decisions needs to be improved, further resources are required and greater professionalisation.

Rebecca:

• Damned if you speak out, damned if you do not.
• Again underlined the responsibility of agencies for their actions. Link between field workers on the ground and advocacy campaigns at headquarters level needs to be strengthened. Those running advocacy campaign must fully understand the implications of their actions.
• ‘War on Terror’ has fundamentally changed the way international NGOs are seen. An association has been created between western politcal powers and NGOs, that they are now somehow instruments of government. The request by international NGOs for a non consensual military force to enter Darfur reinforces this – will an Iraq/Afghanistan type occupation follow this request?
• Are NGOs undermining sovereignty?
• A shift has occurred from NGOs needing to provide purely basic needs to now having to be involved in advocacy, understand the root causes of conflict and become involved in post conflict work.
• Support for humanitarian work is dependent on ease of involvement. There is nowhere near the level of engagement in the US on the humanitarian situation in Palestine compared to the massive engagement on Darfur.
• Agencies under increased pressure to speak out.
• If access is not improved the UN will impose sanctions, this puts a lot of pressure on NGOs to stay and improve access.
• Neutrality does not mean condoning violations of IHL.