“Protected Humanitarian Corridors” in Darfur: a Dangerous Confusion between Military and Humanitarian Action

Mr. Kouchner, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, proposes to use military force to protect a “humanitarian corridor” to provide assistance to populations of Darfur from a base in neighboring Chad. This proposal poses a number of questions.

Dr. Denis Lemasson, director of program for the French section of Médecins Sans Frontières in Darfur, explains how this proposal is disconnected from the reality of relief operations on the ground and could even be counterproductive for assistance to populations in Darfur.

 

What is the overall situation in Darfur?

Since the Abuja agreement was signed in May 2006, the situation has evolved towards a fragmentation of armed groups: rebels and pro-government forces are today split in dozens of groups who fight each other, fuelling a climate of insecurity. This violence frequently results in sporadic combats, raids on villages and targeted attacks, including on humanitarian workers.

More than 2 million people are still displaced and depend heavily on international humanitarian assistance for their survival. Even though nothing is solved on the political front, we are no longer in a context of mass massacres perpetrated by government forces as it was the case in 2003-2004.

Is humanitarian assistance impossible today in Darfur?

In this context of war and insecurity, especially on roads, providing relief is very difficult. Despite this, since mid-2004, organizations on the ground have been conducting relief operations of unprecedented size in the main areas of displacement: more than 10,000 humanitarian workers are working in Darfur bringing a much-needed assistance (food, water, and medical care) to approximately 2 million displaced persons.

Médecins Sans Frontières employs 2,000 staff to carry out its operations in all three regions of the province, including in rebel-controlled areas.How is aid delivered to the different locations where Médecins Sans Frontières operates?

Following a serious assault on our staff last September, Médecins Sans Frontières teams rely on World Food Program planes and helicopters to reach field projects. However we continue to transport our material by road from Khartoum, as has been the case since the beginning of this operation. Given the robberies and attacks endured by humanitarian organizations, we must constantly reassess our operations and negotiate with all parties to the conflict for access and assistance to the populations. In this context, being an independent humanitarian organization is essential.

Isn’t access to people living outside camps still an issue?

We are indeed confronted with problems in accessing certain populations, including those living in the rural areas cut-off due to road insecurity. But humanitarian corridors do not seem to be a workable solution for populations scattered on a desert-like territory the size of France.

Is it appropriate to use armed forces to protect the delivery of assistance?

Mr. Kouchner’s proposal, which blurs the line between military and humanitarian action, is dangerous. Should a foreign armed force be in charge of protecting humanitarian convoys, aid workers would risk being associated with a party to the conflict, thus becoming a target. We’ve seen it many times before: mixing humanitarian action and armed intervention is often inefficient because humanitarian organizations must remain neutral and independent of any political power –and be perceived as such– in order to access people in need. On the contrary, protected humanitarian corridors, as put forth by Mr. Kouchner, would no longer be neutral zones. Instead of reinforcing humanitarian assistance, it’s the opposite that risks happening.
 

What is your opinion regarding past attempts to implement similar proposals?

Without expecting history to repeat itself, past experiences of “humanitarian intervention” justify our concern. “Humanitarian corridors” and “safe havens” put in place in Srebrenica and Gorazde in Bosnia are tragic reminders of the illusion of security brought about by such measures. Similarly, the failure of the “humanitarian-military” operation led by the United States in Somalia in 1992 also added to an increasingly dangerous blurring of lines between humanitarian and military action and proved to be a failure in terms of protection and assistance to populations in need.