Comments on: Dangerous Statistics in Iraq

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:06:46 +0000

I understand what you are saying, Paul. In fact, I agree with you that Jeff Harvey’s comments are less than useful. However, I might not have made sufficiently clear what I was trying to get across: that we almost always implicitly pick a political position in whatever we do. Specifically, when we are talking about gathering and analysing information, both the selection of which information to gather and the way in which it is analysed are highly politically charged. Just deciding to concentrate on e.g. population health status in Iraq is by itself a political act, let alone the myriad ways in which the information can be interpreted.

As to the Code of Conduct: I fully support it as a whole, but always felt that that element was worded rather unfortunately. The humanitarian viewpoint is a highly political one (I have had long discussions with people who felt that it was unacceptable to ‘aid and abet insurrectionists’ or even their families, whatever their needs), and I strongly feel that we should further that particular viewpoint. In fact, outside the context of that viewpoint, the whole Code of Conduct is meaningless.

By: Paul Currion

Paul Currion — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 06:58:38 +0000

Michael – that’s a fair point, but that definition of political is so wide as to be meaningless. In the case of humanitarian assistance, it simply means that (in the words of the Code of Conduct), aid will not be used to further a particular political or religious viewpoint.

Obviously this can’t be an absolute principle, because there are so many other factors at play – including those of the beneficiaries themselves. However if we start from a position such as Jeff’s, we are unlikely to secure the co-operation that we need in order to do our work.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:11:59 +0000

Of course, the stance that ‘our work is at the service of the beneficiaries, rather than of our own political interests’ is, by and of itself, a political one, as the beneficiaries’ interests are political interests; in fact, the moment you start talking about interest you talk about politics. Let’s not be hypocritical about it: almost everything we do is political. ‘Political’ on the one hand and ‘neutral’ or ‘impartial’ on the other are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, I would say that often political action is necessary to be ‘impartial’, as organisations like MSF have shown time after time.