Preliminary Questions
- Who are the main personalities in this documentary?
- What perspectives do they provide about humanitarian crisis and intervention?
- What biases may these personalities be harboring?
- Might their biases skew the depiction of what occurred?
Content Questions
- Who are the political actors in this story, and what roles do they play?
- What does Dr. Orbinski say about what humanitarian intervention is and what it has become?
- Politics is the exercise of power. In what ways does Dr. Orbinski exercise power?
Analysis Questions
- What is the role of the military in these humanitarian crises?
- What is Dr. Orbinski's position on the military role in humanitarian intervention?
- In what ways is military intervention problematic during humanitarian crises?
- What questions does this documentary raise for you?
If you didn't watch the film, or would like to watch it in unedited form, it's available on Netflix Instant for those of you who have an account.
Orbinski discusses his frustration with how humanitarian aid is frequently taken over by a political agenda. He discusses how the term "humanitarian aid" needs to be reclaimed -- by its nature, it cannot succumb to politics. Instead, it must relate primarily to the human condition and what is right instead of what is politically advantageous. Orbinski also notes, somewhat cryptically, that although humanitarian actors are not political, it also means they "have to be the most political."
ReplyDeleteOrbinski is able to exercise power through his prominent position in the international community (through his Nobel Peace Prize). He uses this recognition to promote MSF -- we see him asking people in Rwanda and Somalia to sing its song, etc., and is also able to promote his book. Though his power seems to be exercised for noble means, it is power nonetheless.
Military intervention can be problematic during humanitarian crises because humanitarian actors often need identification with the military for legitimacy and safety, but also need the independence and agency that comes with being a private actor.
The presence of militaries in humanitarian crisis has caused a form of humanitarian wars and introduced even more challenges for people like Dr. Orbinski. As mentioned in the film, when the the UN got involved in Somalia with a US lead intervention, the main problem was that they did not fully understand what was going on or who the bad or good people were. It seemed as if they were intervening with the wrong mindset. We see this dominating attitude when trying to help someone from a different culture or environment in the US and even in Memphis. Too often do people offer to volunteer and have the disposition that they know what is right and how to fix the problem instead of leaving the roots of the issues. With military intervention with that particular mindset, it is understandable how that just creates more chaos and confusion during humanitarian crises.
ReplyDeleteOne thing Dr. Orbinski said about humanitarian actors and politicians seemed to make sense at first. He said that humanitarian actors are not political actors. They have no real power and must state who they are, what they are doing, what risks they are not going to take - basically they must be very transparent while not doing anything to provoke people and receive negative reaction. At first this makes sense, that humanitarian actors have no real power as they are not always real politicians, but after putting some thought into it, these humanitarian actors must have power, and maybe even have a hidden agenda, if they want to get anything done. It raises the question of how it is possible to make a lasting difference without using politics to promote their cause and gain security for their actions. Dr. Orbinski noted that activists lead through intellectual work, however, I feel that can only go so far especially if they are vulnerable to outside forces as they try to avoid military assistance. Although the humanitarian actors may not play a political game, those in power will, and if they support what the humanitarian actors are going it will be difficult to keep their independence. the humanitarian actors will still get involved in politics even if it was their intention or not.
ReplyDeleteOrbinski’s documentary “Triage” tries to explain how difficult it is to provide humanitarian intervention with limited resources. Places where a civil war is fought between different ethnicities,(which are not even internationally recognized), had led to a situation in which hundreds of people each day were killed in the name of “ethnic cleansing”. A genocide was happening in Rwanda in 1994 and the whole world was simply watching it.
ReplyDeleteIn his movie, Orbinski returns to Africa to revising the past he has to face each day. His humanitarian experience has changed him forever and affects his present. He insists that humanitarian, as the root of that word show, is a creature of men, therefore it can’t be perfect and it makes your contribution very personal, very human. That is the kind of international humanitarian effort he stands and fights for: humanitarianism can never be linked to militarism and the demands of great powers. However, volunteers like him can give their contribution only when their safety is assured. In fact, in 1997, a doctor of his team was shot, killed in the hospital he was helping, and that forced all the other members of MSF to leave. It’s impossible to work in absence of security. That security can only be assured through military intervention, but this is seen as an offensive, rather than a defensive approach, to the eyes of the ethnicities fighting. It’s an impossible dilemma. Still, right now some “humanitarian wars” are being fought within the world and as Orbiski affirms, “this is a oxymoron!”
In this film, Orbinski clearly shows his opposition to politicized humanitarian intervention and his anger at the hypocrisy of the West. He is severely critical of France’s role in selling arms to the genocidaires in Rwanda and he opposes the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (sold as humanitarian) too.
In the book he is writing, he tries to pose a sensible pattern on “ethnical chaos” on the basis of his personal experience. He is trying to give a right pattern to follow in order to resolve conflicts through humanitarianism. His words: “there’s no answer to this, but I know this is the right question” actually are the most significant of this impossible dilemma.
Finally, how do we think he would feel about UN missions to Darfur? I leave this question open.
Mariafiore
It does seem that MSF is active in Sudan. Based on what I can tell in the video, he'd like to keep the military out of it.
Deletehttp://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/allcontent.cfm?id=72
Just getting around to reading these. Thanks for contributing, everyone.
ReplyDelete