Diagnosis for Disaster

While the rest of the aid community was holding concerts and fundraising drives for the victims of the recent tsunami in South Asia, Doctors Without Borders/Mdecins Sans Frontires (MSF) called on the public to stop donating to its tsunami relief fund, as it had raised all the money it needed. FP spoke with Nicolas de Torrent, executive director of MSF in the United States, about the publics response to disaster relief, the dangerous world aid workers inhabit, and how the United States is inadvertently putting aid workers in the cross hairs.

FOREIGN POLICY: Why did MSF ask people to stop donating to the tsunami relief fund?

Nicolas de Torrent: Everywhere we were getting this incredible outpouring of generosity, and we felt that our operations were sufficiently funded with the money we had already received. We focus on the emergency phase and are not involved with long-term reconstruction. We were not saying, of course, stop giving to help tsunami victims in general. But [we did] look at our own capacity and the need that we could meet, and wanted to be responsible to our donors.

FP: Why do you think Western publics responded so generously to the victims of the tsunami, while other humanitarian crises get overlooked?

NT: [With] natural disasters, theres this conception that the victims are blameless, and therefore they deserve to be helped, no questions asked, because they had nothing to do with it.

FP: Some of these crises, like the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, have been going on for many years. Do you see any hope for improvement there?

NT: Yes, otherwise we would give up and stop trying. There is hope for improvement, but there needs to be much more attention for that to happen. In terms of media, were in a little bit of a Catch-22. These are chronic conflicts, theyre very complex, [and] it seems from the outside that everyone is somehow responsible for whats happening. Also, its [not] secure [and] difficult to get there, and the assumption is its too hard, its too complex, and people dont really care anyway, so why should we have media spend their resources and time and effort to understand it and report it in an intelligible way? We want to challenge that assumption.

FP: Do you think Western publics now have compassion fatigue?

NT: Peoples eyes glaze over. The big striking difference between the tsunami victims and the victims in these other areas is that we feel less of a connection to the victims in other places.

FP: Where would you place Iraq in terms of humanitarian suffering at the moment?

NT: Clearly the humanitarian needs have increased with the increase in violence. The difficulty in Iraq is that its extremely difficult, if not impossible, for aid organizations to be present on the groundnot just because of the general violence but because of the targeted attacks against aid organizations.

FP: Do you think what is happening in Darfur is genocide?

NT: We havent characterized it as genocide, but whatever you call it, these are crimes against humanity. The irony is that even though the term genocide has been used, what came right after the use of that term, especially in Secretary [of State Colin] Powells address back in September, was no additional action is needed. He said that were responding to it already. If the term genocide is used, but thats the extent of what takes place, then you wonder what genocide actually means.

FP: Do you think Afghanistan is less safe than its been during the last 25 years?

NT: Certainly for aid organizations. In 2004, we had the painful experience of having to leave two countries [Iraq and Afghanistan] because of security threats directed against aid workers. We had five of our staff murdered in Afghanistan in June.

FP: So the safety of the aid workers was the reason that you left?

NT: It was the murder of our five colleagues, and the fact that threats had been made against us by the Taliban. And third, the twist of the story, it seems that it was not the Taliban that actually carried out the attack [but] a local commander affiliated with the government in Kabul.

FP: So you think it was someone connected to Hamid Karzais government?

NT: Thats what the officials have told us that the investigation turned up. That it was most likely a disgruntled local commander affiliated with the government who wanted to make a point, and the way he made his point was to kill aid workers. The problem there is we feel the response of the government has not been forceful, sending a signal of impunity.

FP: MSF has said you feel very uncomfortable with the way the U.S. military operations try to incorporate humanitarian agencies. That wasnt the reason you left Afghanistan?

NT: We feel that the attacks against aid workers have taken place in a context. Theres no question whos responsible. The responsibility was not, of course, the U.S. governments. The attacks did take place in a context where you have a U.S. military presence, a U.S.-backed government, and strong efforts by the United States to present aid efforts in that country as an extension of their political and military strategy. All of those different aspects make it more likely and more interesting for groups who are interested in getting the United States to attack aid organizations.

FP: So you feel that the United States policy

NT: Makes us more vulnerable. Absolutely. It makes it more likely that we would be attacked and makes us more of a prize. Its easier for them to attack aid workers than it is to attack U.S. soldiers.