0:00:02 > 0:00:04In times of crisis, people need help, and it's our duty
0:00:04 > 0:00:07to give it to them. Difficult to disagree with that, isn't it?
0:00:07 > 0:00:09But as you'll know if you watched the documentary
0:00:09 > 0:00:11The Trouble With Aid earlier this evening,
0:00:11 > 0:00:14it may not be quite that simple. In this special debate, we'll be
0:00:14 > 0:00:16exploring the issues raised in the film,
0:00:16 > 0:00:19and asking - is aid in trouble?
0:00:31 > 0:00:34Good evening. Humanitarian aid in its modern form
0:00:34 > 0:00:37has been around for nearly half a century. All of us
0:00:37 > 0:00:40have seen appeals prompted by famine, floods or an earthquake.
0:00:40 > 0:00:43Many of us will have given money in response,
0:00:43 > 0:00:45and will quite rightly be proud of having done so.
0:00:45 > 0:00:48But that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask rigorous questions
0:00:48 > 0:00:51about what impact our money has.
0:00:51 > 0:00:53That's what the director Ricardo Pollack does
0:00:53 > 0:00:55in his film The Trouble With Aid.
0:00:55 > 0:00:58The film makes the case, shared by some within the aid community,
0:00:58 > 0:01:02that humanitarian aid doesn't always achieve what it sets out to do.
0:01:02 > 0:01:06In a moment, I'll be discussing that case with a panel of experts,
0:01:06 > 0:01:09each with a history of close engagement with humanitarian aid,
0:01:09 > 0:01:12and a range of views on how well it works.
0:01:12 > 0:01:16But first, here's a reminder of the documentary's main arguments.
0:01:17 > 0:01:20Most aid agencies are run by dedicated people,
0:01:20 > 0:01:23committed to helping those in need with the money we give them.
0:01:25 > 0:01:27'The Red Cross sign always brings hope -
0:01:27 > 0:01:32'hope of relief of suffering, hope of humanity to man...'
0:01:32 > 0:01:34But through interviews with dozens of aid professionals,
0:01:34 > 0:01:38the documentary argues that when the best of intentions meet
0:01:38 > 0:01:41the complex realities of a humanitarian crisis,
0:01:41 > 0:01:43there can be unforeseen consequences.
0:01:43 > 0:01:47In a food distribution centre, we had already cut the blankets in half,
0:01:47 > 0:01:50not because we didn't have enough to go around, but to ruin the value
0:01:50 > 0:01:54of blankets on the market, because everything was being stolen.
0:01:54 > 0:01:58Ricardo Pollack's film examines these hidden dilemmas.
0:01:58 > 0:02:02I think we've all grown up with a very simple view
0:02:02 > 0:02:06of what aid does, which is, aid feeds the hungry,
0:02:06 > 0:02:08aid saves lives.
0:02:08 > 0:02:10The question I think that we rarely confront is
0:02:10 > 0:02:13what are the other consequences of our actions
0:02:13 > 0:02:16in highly complex situations? And that is really
0:02:16 > 0:02:18what I wanted to look at historically
0:02:18 > 0:02:21in the key crises of the last 50 years.
0:02:21 > 0:02:23The film focuses on seven key moments
0:02:23 > 0:02:27when humanitarian interventions have thrown up challenges.
0:02:27 > 0:02:31For instance, when agencies have been forced into a marriage
0:02:31 > 0:02:33of convenience with military forces.
0:02:33 > 0:02:37It raises a wider question about the whole relationship
0:02:37 > 0:02:41of aid agencies, with, you know, Western powers,
0:02:41 > 0:02:44that we are, in many parts of the world, seen as
0:02:44 > 0:02:46tools of those Western powers.
0:02:46 > 0:02:50Aid workers themselves discuss many of these questions constantly.
0:02:50 > 0:02:53Ricardo Pollack believes that we as donors
0:02:53 > 0:02:55should be involved in that discussion.
0:02:55 > 0:02:58I realised that there was a massive internal debate
0:02:58 > 0:03:02within the aid community about how effective they were
0:03:02 > 0:03:06in emergency situations. But that wasn't being reflected
0:03:06 > 0:03:10in a broader, public debate. And the reason was,
0:03:10 > 0:03:12because you need to keep the message simple, which is,
0:03:12 > 0:03:17"You give us money and we go and feed hungry people."
0:03:17 > 0:03:20If you complicate the message, you might affect giving.
0:03:20 > 0:03:24The uncomfortable question at the heart of his film is this -
0:03:24 > 0:03:28does humanitarian aid sometimes do more harm than good?
0:03:30 > 0:03:33If you see that that child has been intentionally starved
0:03:33 > 0:03:36in order to attract your aid money...
0:03:37 > 0:03:41..you need to take that very hard last step, to say,
0:03:41 > 0:03:44"If we do this, it's actually going to cause more harm
0:03:44 > 0:03:47"in the long run, and we have to say no."
0:03:48 > 0:03:52With me are Marc DuBois, executive director of the British arm of MSF -
0:03:52 > 0:03:55Medecins Sans Frontieres - Jane Cocking, humanitarian director
0:03:55 > 0:03:58of Oxfam, Dr Randolph Kent of King's College, London,
0:03:58 > 0:04:01who, during his time at the UN, was involved in operations in Ethiopia,
0:04:01 > 0:04:05Somalia, Rwanda and Kosovo, and the journalist Ian Birrell,
0:04:05 > 0:04:08who writes widely on this subject, and has been critical
0:04:08 > 0:04:10of the aid community's efforts. Thanks, all, for coming in.
0:04:10 > 0:04:13Jane Cocking, let's begin with you. I'm sure there were lots of things
0:04:13 > 0:04:16about this film that you would challenge,
0:04:16 > 0:04:19but do you accept that there is a case to answer?
0:04:19 > 0:04:21Of course there's a case to answer, and it's
0:04:21 > 0:04:24our responsibility to do so, both
0:04:24 > 0:04:26for those people who give us money,
0:04:26 > 0:04:29and for those people we seek to help. Humanitarian aid
0:04:29 > 0:04:34is offered in situations which are chaotic and messy,
0:04:34 > 0:04:38and it puts us in some very difficult moral dilemmas.
0:04:38 > 0:04:42And a moral dilemma is where you have a choice of two bad solutions.
0:04:42 > 0:04:45And we find ourselves having to make those difficult decisions,
0:04:45 > 0:04:47and it's our responsibility to explain them.
0:04:47 > 0:04:50Randolph Kent, your long career with the UN covers
0:04:50 > 0:04:53much of the history that was covered in this film. Do you recognise
0:04:53 > 0:04:57the narrative? It may be a partial one, but do you recognise people
0:04:57 > 0:04:58finding out as they went along that
0:04:58 > 0:05:01things were more complicated than they thought?
0:05:01 > 0:05:04Very much so, and one thing which is very important to bear in mind is
0:05:04 > 0:05:07that this whole process has been a learning exercise,
0:05:07 > 0:05:13and what we started to learn in the 1960s and '70s
0:05:13 > 0:05:17was continuing to be learned throughout even the present.
0:05:17 > 0:05:20Ian Birrell, you've written a lot about this, and this is very much
0:05:20 > 0:05:24the line that you take, isn't it, that there are real problems?
0:05:24 > 0:05:27There's always been problems. If you go back to the birth
0:05:27 > 0:05:29of the humanitarian movement in the mid-19th century,
0:05:29 > 0:05:32Florence Nightingale attacked the founder of the Red Cross,
0:05:32 > 0:05:34saying that they were offering simplistic solutions
0:05:34 > 0:05:38and encouraging conflict, and it's the same debate we're having today.
0:05:38 > 0:05:41What this film shows very clearly is that all too often
0:05:41 > 0:05:44these Western salvation fantasies that people have,
0:05:44 > 0:05:47- going out to these places... - "Western salvation fantasies"?
0:05:47 > 0:05:49People think they can save the world and change the world, and often
0:05:49 > 0:05:53they go in and they intervene, and what they're offering backfires
0:05:53 > 0:05:56in the most terrible way for the people on the ground. And I think
0:05:56 > 0:05:58that's what the film shows very clearly. And also, of course,
0:05:58 > 0:06:02a lot of the aid community - and there's this vast, ballooning
0:06:02 > 0:06:06aid movement - has put forward very simplistic solutions.
0:06:06 > 0:06:10And what the film shows very clearly is that the world is a much,
0:06:10 > 0:06:13much more complicated place, and these solutions are often
0:06:13 > 0:06:17- highly, highly flawed.- There's a lot there which we will come back to
0:06:17 > 0:06:20in the course of the evening, but, Marc DuBois, your agency
0:06:20 > 0:06:25in particular has a history, and I think is quite proud of the fact
0:06:25 > 0:06:28that it does very openly address some of these questions
0:06:28 > 0:06:32in a way, in some cases, that the film does...
0:06:32 > 0:06:35I think you can almost re-title this film
0:06:35 > 0:06:37The Limits Of Humanitarian Aid, because I think
0:06:37 > 0:06:40we all agree around this table that there are limits.
0:06:40 > 0:06:44As Jane just said, the situations in which we work are messy,
0:06:44 > 0:06:47and there's no humanitarian slide rule that lets you calculate
0:06:47 > 0:06:50in an easy way, "How do you get out of this mess?
0:06:50 > 0:06:53"What's the right way to go?" But I think there's a question
0:06:53 > 0:06:56at the very end of, "Can aid make the world a better place?"
0:06:56 > 0:06:59And I think for MSF, that's the wrong question.
0:06:59 > 0:07:02We're not... Humanitarian aid is not designed
0:07:02 > 0:07:03to make the world a better place.
0:07:03 > 0:07:06It's designed to make sure people are alive when the world
0:07:06 > 0:07:09becomes a better place, you know, from the other actors.
0:07:09 > 0:07:11And something we should make clear, which is,
0:07:11 > 0:07:14we're not tonight talking about development aid,
0:07:14 > 0:07:17- which IS supposed to make the world a better place.- Exactly.
0:07:17 > 0:07:19A final word from you, Jane Cocking, before we move on.
0:07:19 > 0:07:23You said you recognised some of the problems that you saw. Do you think
0:07:23 > 0:07:26that agencies like your own - and this is something
0:07:26 > 0:07:28we'll come onto in more detail later -
0:07:28 > 0:07:30are sufficiently straight about saying that?
0:07:32 > 0:07:35I think we DO explain where we've had problems.
0:07:35 > 0:07:39Erm, when I think of the way in which we talk to the people
0:07:39 > 0:07:44who support Oxfam, er, the way we talk in the media,
0:07:44 > 0:07:47I can think of many occasions in my own career where
0:07:47 > 0:07:50I have explained that we've got this right, we've got
0:07:50 > 0:07:53that wrong, this is why we made that choice...
0:07:53 > 0:07:57And, er, I think we generally feel
0:07:57 > 0:08:01that if we are straight and open with people, people understand.
0:08:01 > 0:08:04They're not foolish, they know what the world is like.
0:08:04 > 0:08:08All right, thank you. That gives us an idea of broadly
0:08:08 > 0:08:13where you all stand, so let's now focus on some of the individual issues raised by the film.
0:08:13 > 0:08:16We'll begin with a really tough question. "Are there occasions
0:08:16 > 0:08:19"when aid does more harm than good?" In the documentary,
0:08:19 > 0:08:21it's the situation in the refugee camps of Goma,
0:08:21 > 0:08:24and the chaos that followed the Rwandan genocide,
0:08:24 > 0:08:27which most clearly highlights the difficult choices
0:08:27 > 0:08:29that agencies sometimes have to make.
0:08:30 > 0:08:34In 1994, thousands fled the genocide in Rwanda
0:08:34 > 0:08:37to the camps of Goma, a border city in what was then Zaire.
0:08:37 > 0:08:41It soon became apparent that many of the perpetrators of the genocide
0:08:41 > 0:08:44had arrived along with the refugees.
0:08:44 > 0:08:48'The guilty men of Rwanda's killing fields have not gone away.
0:08:48 > 0:08:51'Their grip on power is tenacious. It is through them that food aid
0:08:51 > 0:08:55'has to be distributed, and in Goma, food is power.'
0:08:55 > 0:08:59All the attention was going to a refugee population
0:08:59 > 0:09:02that actually included substantial numbers
0:09:02 > 0:09:06of those who were responsible for the genocide in the first place.
0:09:07 > 0:09:11The camps were really being used as a military sanctuary by these people,
0:09:11 > 0:09:14and we were contributing to it as an aid community.
0:09:14 > 0:09:18It looked to many people as if outside aid was, in effect,
0:09:18 > 0:09:22supporting the continuation of the genocide from the camps themselves.
0:09:22 > 0:09:25One agency, the French wing of Medecins Sans Frontieres,
0:09:25 > 0:09:27decided to pull out.
0:09:27 > 0:09:30It was highly controversial.
0:09:30 > 0:09:34I thought a deliberate withdrawal of humanitarian assistance
0:09:34 > 0:09:37from a crisis was a cruel and uncreative way
0:09:37 > 0:09:40to deal with this moral dilemma.
0:09:40 > 0:09:43The ethical dilemma that confronted us is,
0:09:43 > 0:09:46what is our primary duty? Is it our duty
0:09:46 > 0:09:52to stay, no matter what, to be able to help those bona fide refugees
0:09:52 > 0:09:56who really need our help? Or do we say, "No, this is unacceptable,
0:09:56 > 0:10:00"we cannot allow our aid to be the source
0:10:00 > 0:10:02"of further suffering for these people."
0:10:03 > 0:10:05Marc DuBois, I don't imagine anybody thinks
0:10:05 > 0:10:09that it was an easy decision that your French colleagues made,
0:10:09 > 0:10:12but do you think it was the right one?
0:10:12 > 0:10:15I do, and I think what you maybe don't see in the film is,
0:10:15 > 0:10:19it's an excruciating decision, and it takes place over time.
0:10:19 > 0:10:23I think to a certain extent, there's a powerlessness
0:10:23 > 0:10:27of being a humanitarian actor - we can't change military parties
0:10:27 > 0:10:30overnight, we can't do something about that.
0:10:30 > 0:10:33And withdrawing aid is in some ways a last...
0:10:33 > 0:10:37the last resort. It's some kind of attempt
0:10:37 > 0:10:40to try and shift the situation. Because I don't think
0:10:40 > 0:10:45it comes across necessarily there. The idea wasn't that these people
0:10:45 > 0:10:48are bad, and therefore we don't want to deliver aid to them
0:10:48 > 0:10:51at all. From a humanitarian perspective,
0:10:51 > 0:10:53you don't make moral judgments about people.
0:10:53 > 0:10:57They're still human beings and they have a right to receive assistance.
0:10:57 > 0:11:01The question then becomes, though, in certain situations,
0:11:01 > 0:11:04is the aid actually getting to people,
0:11:04 > 0:11:07or is it doing something else? And for me,
0:11:07 > 0:11:10I think the decision taken by the French section was justifiable,
0:11:10 > 0:11:14but it came after months and months of trying to put pressure on,
0:11:14 > 0:11:18to have something done about that situation in the camps.
0:11:18 > 0:11:21Just to be clear about the equation, if that's not too cold
0:11:21 > 0:11:26a word to use in this context, your judgment was, or their judgment was,
0:11:26 > 0:11:29that more people would probably die if you remained there
0:11:29 > 0:11:34supporting people who were committing terrible crimes against humanity. Is that...?
0:11:34 > 0:11:36I don't know if it's that easy. I think different
0:11:36 > 0:11:39people had different feelings. People felt that actually by withdrawing
0:11:39 > 0:11:42and drawing attention to the situation, you might help
0:11:42 > 0:11:46reduce something. There are other people who simply resigned
0:11:46 > 0:11:49because they couldn't stomach what was going on around them.
0:11:49 > 0:11:52That's an individual, on the ground,
0:11:52 > 0:11:56really...I think...struggling, struggling internally,
0:11:56 > 0:12:00with what it means to be humanitarian and coming up against its limits.
0:12:00 > 0:12:04But that calculation, even looking back at it now,
0:12:04 > 0:12:06you know, how can you make that calculation? If cholera
0:12:06 > 0:12:09had run through that camp a week later, as it did
0:12:09 > 0:12:13several months earlier, what would that decision have looked like?
0:12:13 > 0:12:16Jane, you're nodding, but would you have taken the same
0:12:16 > 0:12:18decision in those circumstances?
0:12:18 > 0:12:22Er, in that particular circumstance, no.
0:12:22 > 0:12:25But as Marc says, it's not 100%
0:12:25 > 0:12:31one way or the other - it's a very, very fine judgment at the time.
0:12:31 > 0:12:36And you need to look at not only what might be going wrong, but also
0:12:36 > 0:12:40what good you're doing and what is going to happen
0:12:40 > 0:12:44if you withdraw that good and also, the other thing...
0:12:44 > 0:12:49This constant reflection and review
0:12:49 > 0:12:52that we all go through on these occasions
0:12:52 > 0:12:57is saying, "Well, if we take this action, then who is going to listen?"
0:12:57 > 0:13:00So you've got to look at that decision not just in terms
0:13:00 > 0:13:02of one set of scales, but also
0:13:02 > 0:13:05what's the broader implication of it.
0:13:05 > 0:13:08And how can you be sure of the judgements that you're making?
0:13:08 > 0:13:10- You can't, presumably. - You can't. Of course you can't.
0:13:10 > 0:13:13- The outcomes are unpredictable. - Of course you can't.
0:13:13 > 0:13:19All you can do is, in this situation of chaos and desperation,
0:13:19 > 0:13:24is use the principles, those core, hard-felt principles
0:13:24 > 0:13:27of independence, humanity,
0:13:27 > 0:13:30really to apply those principles
0:13:30 > 0:13:32in the best possible way you can.
0:13:32 > 0:13:37Of course, all of us who've been put in a position of making that decision, I can't think
0:13:37 > 0:13:41of any decision like that that any of us have been forced to make
0:13:41 > 0:13:46that we've thought afterwards, "You know what, that was absolutely the right thing."
0:13:46 > 0:13:49You always reflect on whether or not it was.
0:13:49 > 0:13:52Ian, what's your reaction to this particular episode?
0:13:52 > 0:13:56I'm sympathetic here to the issues. It was a nightmarish situation,
0:13:56 > 0:14:01unbelievable events had taken place and it was very hard to make the judgements,
0:14:01 > 0:14:04but I think the lessons are interesting. Firstly,
0:14:04 > 0:14:11the MSF typically and very bravely made a stand against the idea of helping
0:14:11 > 0:14:15the murderous gangs to regroup and refuel and to strengthen,
0:14:15 > 0:14:18because that was what the aid was doing.
0:14:18 > 0:14:21Having done so, then all the other aid groups started attacking them
0:14:21 > 0:14:25and started drip-feeding some pretty hostile stuff against them.
0:14:25 > 0:14:28I think that was quite interesting because time and again,
0:14:28 > 0:14:31what we've seen is that within the aid industry, they don't like
0:14:31 > 0:14:35anyone criticising and they don't really debate and discuss these...
0:14:35 > 0:14:40- That's something we'll come on to. - The other factor is, it's interesting that even today,
0:14:40 > 0:14:42a lot of the same issues are still there
0:14:42 > 0:14:43and I know it's not about today,
0:14:43 > 0:14:48but you do see the same issues there, that the aid lobby are still
0:14:48 > 0:14:51very happy to give aid into very dubious situations,
0:14:51 > 0:14:54despite the legacy and implications.
0:14:54 > 0:14:57- That's a debate that comes back to today.- That's a general point.
0:14:57 > 0:14:59Randolph Kent, I'd like to ask you again,
0:14:59 > 0:15:03with a view to your long history with the UN in mind,
0:15:03 > 0:15:07Goma was obviously a particularly extreme set of circumstances.
0:15:07 > 0:15:10Have you seen that kind of dilemma replicated elsewhere?
0:15:10 > 0:15:14I think your question is really very apposite because the answer is yes,
0:15:14 > 0:15:17time and time again, one goes through exactly that moral dilemma
0:15:17 > 0:15:20that both Marc and Jane mentioned.
0:15:20 > 0:15:22Let me just take this point, however,
0:15:22 > 0:15:27and say that one of our problems in the larger context,
0:15:27 > 0:15:29the international context, is that
0:15:29 > 0:15:35while the humanitarians should be focusing on that child in need, that
0:15:35 > 0:15:41person on the brink, what the system is not using is the wider system
0:15:41 > 0:15:46to begin to cajole, to move, to try and influence governments, etc.
0:15:46 > 0:15:52So to look at humanitarianism outside a wider context of influence
0:15:52 > 0:15:56and influencers is probably one of our major problems.
0:15:56 > 0:15:59Marc, what do you make of what Ian had to say?
0:15:59 > 0:16:01I tend to agree with Ian.
0:16:01 > 0:16:04I do think that these same sort of dilemmas play out today,
0:16:04 > 0:16:06but I do think we've learned a bit
0:16:06 > 0:16:10and I think it comes back to what Randolph said. In 1995, or 1994,
0:16:10 > 0:16:16in that period, I think the withdrawal of aid was sort of our strong card.
0:16:16 > 0:16:20And I think we've evolved now and we are much more in contact
0:16:20 > 0:16:22and able to influence people.
0:16:22 > 0:16:26I don't think we find ourselves as boxed-in as back then.
0:16:26 > 0:16:30I think we would be able to put much greater pressure on
0:16:30 > 0:16:33other political entities and organisations to try and,
0:16:33 > 0:16:36for instance, disarm the camps or do something about them.
0:16:36 > 0:16:39Whether it would be successful or not, I... No-one can predict.
0:16:39 > 0:16:43Just staying, Jane Cocking, with the history, Ian Birrell suggested that other agencies...
0:16:43 > 0:16:46He didn't name you, but he said other agencies badmouthed
0:16:46 > 0:16:50Medecins Sans Frontieres at the time this decision was taken.
0:16:50 > 0:16:55Is there that sort of bad blood in the aid world, or is that unfair?
0:16:55 > 0:16:58I think that's rather unfair, to be honest.
0:16:58 > 0:17:04I think there is a very clear understanding that we are at
0:17:04 > 0:17:10our strongest when we work together and when we share a common analysis.
0:17:10 > 0:17:14And again, as Marc says, we have evolved
0:17:14 > 0:17:20and there are many occasions where combining our strengths is
0:17:20 > 0:17:23actually best for people on the ground, so I don't recognise that.
0:17:23 > 0:17:24Let me just pursue it a tiny bit.
0:17:24 > 0:17:29What is it, in the way that the two of you work, that means that
0:17:29 > 0:17:34Medecins Sans Frontieres took one decision back then and you say you would have taken another?
0:17:34 > 0:17:41I mean, what is it that tips the two of you on different sides of the decision-making line?
0:17:41 > 0:17:45There are all sorts of things that may come into a decision like that.
0:17:45 > 0:17:51In particular, what sort of assistance you're providing
0:17:51 > 0:17:57and what you can do to mitigate the bad side of what you might be
0:17:57 > 0:17:58bringing about.
0:17:58 > 0:18:04So for example, in Oxfam's case, we work a lot providing
0:18:04 > 0:18:09fresh water and sanitation, which is hugely important in these circumstances,
0:18:09 > 0:18:13and over the years we've developed ways of doing that that makes it
0:18:13 > 0:18:17less open to abuse, so very basic things like you bury the pipes
0:18:17 > 0:18:21very deeply so that they can't be dug up quickly and taken away.
0:18:21 > 0:18:25You can distribute food in ways that it's not going to be stolen
0:18:25 > 0:18:30and loaded onto trucks. You give it as meals.
0:18:30 > 0:18:36So what that actual context enables you to do
0:18:36 > 0:18:38can really tip the balance.
0:18:38 > 0:18:44So if you're 49, 51% on one side of the argument,
0:18:44 > 0:18:48then sometimes it'll be the practical things that you can do that make the difference.
0:18:48 > 0:18:51- Did you want to come in there, Randolph?- No, I just think...
0:18:51 > 0:18:55I understand that point completely, but let me
0:18:55 > 0:18:56just put this in another context
0:18:56 > 0:18:59and that is, while Goma was going on,
0:18:59 > 0:19:03we had a horrendous situation in Kibeho, within Rwanda, where the government
0:19:03 > 0:19:09started bombing the camp because of their concern about the involvement of "the Hutu",
0:19:09 > 0:19:14those who were the "genocidaires", people who'd started the genocide.
0:19:14 > 0:19:19The point here is that basically what one saw was an extraordinary
0:19:19 > 0:19:22opportunity in which the agencies, the non-governmental
0:19:22 > 0:19:28organisations, tried to deal with the consequence of that violence
0:19:28 > 0:19:32while in the UN, what we were trying to do is to get the government to back off.
0:19:32 > 0:19:35To that extent it was extraordinary synergy.
0:19:35 > 0:19:39Let's leave it there for the moment, because I want to move on to another of the key issues that
0:19:39 > 0:19:42emerges from the documentary - the way in which the stories
0:19:42 > 0:19:45behind humanitarian crises can get simplified or indeed
0:19:45 > 0:19:48misrepresented to suit the interested parties - governments,
0:19:48 > 0:19:52campaigners and perhaps even the aid agencies themselves.
0:19:52 > 0:19:58The Biafran war in the late 1960s in a region of south-east Nigeria, fought for independence,
0:19:58 > 0:20:01was arguably the moment the modern aid movement was born.
0:20:01 > 0:20:05When the Nigerian government blockaded the would-be breakaway state,
0:20:05 > 0:20:09Biafra's leaders appealed for help feeding their people
0:20:09 > 0:20:13and images of starving children raised huge sums in Western countries.
0:20:13 > 0:20:15But were we getting the full story?
0:20:17 > 0:20:20Propaganda played a major role.
0:20:20 > 0:20:24They had a kind of starvation camp where starving people
0:20:24 > 0:20:27and primarily starving kids
0:20:27 > 0:20:30were kept to be provided to
0:20:30 > 0:20:34the objectives of the cameras so you could have nice snaps
0:20:34 > 0:20:36of starving kids and then fly back to Europe.
0:20:39 > 0:20:43Some 20 years later, and our screens were once again filled
0:20:43 > 0:20:46with heart-wrenching images from Africa.
0:20:46 > 0:20:48Dawn, and as the sun breaks through
0:20:48 > 0:20:50the piercing chill of night
0:20:50 > 0:20:52on the plain outside Korem,
0:20:52 > 0:20:55it lights up a biblical famine -
0:20:55 > 0:20:57now, in the 20th century.
0:20:57 > 0:21:00But the Ethiopian famine of 1984 wasn't simply
0:21:00 > 0:21:02the result of natural disaster.
0:21:02 > 0:21:05There were politics at work here, too.
0:21:05 > 0:21:07Actually, the Ethiopian government
0:21:07 > 0:21:09was fighting a war
0:21:09 > 0:21:13against the people of the north, who wanted to break away.
0:21:15 > 0:21:18So the government was deliberately starving that area
0:21:18 > 0:21:20and that had led to the famine.
0:21:20 > 0:21:23It of course suited the Ethiopian government to
0:21:23 > 0:21:27play down its role in the famine, but should aid agencies
0:21:27 > 0:21:31and campaigners have done more to explain what was really happening?
0:21:31 > 0:21:34'And would that have made us less willing to give?'
0:21:34 > 0:21:36Well, Jane Cocking,
0:21:36 > 0:21:40do you think agencies should have said more in those circumstances?
0:21:40 > 0:21:42And do you oversimplify the message sometimes,
0:21:42 > 0:21:44because it's easier to get money that way?
0:21:44 > 0:21:46I think it's very difficult, um...
0:21:46 > 0:21:48all these years on, to say whether
0:21:48 > 0:21:51or not a particular communication,
0:21:51 > 0:21:56a particular explanation was right or not in 1985.
0:21:56 > 0:22:01What I know now is that the complexity
0:22:01 > 0:22:03of some of the messages
0:22:03 > 0:22:09and the explanations that we put out about places like Somalia,
0:22:09 > 0:22:13like Goma at the moment,
0:22:13 > 0:22:18are very detailed and there will always be different audiences
0:22:18 > 0:22:22who want a different level of detail, but certainly,
0:22:22 > 0:22:26we think very hard
0:22:26 > 0:22:30about how do we represent the situation
0:22:30 > 0:22:34in a way that is actually going to make that human connection and
0:22:34 > 0:22:37that's usually by actually explaining what's going on
0:22:37 > 0:22:40in somebody's life. So there are occasions, of course,
0:22:40 > 0:22:42where you've got to...
0:22:42 > 0:22:45You've only got a limited amount of time to put over the message,
0:22:45 > 0:22:50but we would never distort it and if people feel we are,
0:22:50 > 0:22:53we would expect them to challenge us on that.
0:22:53 > 0:22:56Ian Birrell, I suspect you will take up the opportunity?
0:22:56 > 0:22:59One of my biggest criticisms is that charities continually just say,
0:22:59 > 0:23:01"Give us a pound and we'll save this child's life."
0:23:01 > 0:23:03It's the same thing again and again.
0:23:03 > 0:23:05They keep saying it's the worst famine ever.
0:23:05 > 0:23:07We can see there with the programme, in Cambodia,
0:23:07 > 0:23:11basically Oxfam hyped up a famine for their own purposes.
0:23:11 > 0:23:14- Well...- But I do think there's a huge issue here that there isn't an honesty.
0:23:14 > 0:23:17I've never heard charities say, "Actually, the truth is some
0:23:17 > 0:23:21"of the money you give us is going to end up in the arms of these killers."
0:23:21 > 0:23:25I think there's a long-term issue that comes out of all this -
0:23:25 > 0:23:29because they continually perpetuate these for their own reasons, to raise money, you get...
0:23:29 > 0:23:32You've completely distorted the image
0:23:32 > 0:23:35and for Africa in particular, between 1990 and 2005,
0:23:35 > 0:23:38only three-tenths of 1% of the people there were affected
0:23:38 > 0:23:42with hunger and famine, and yet people in Britain think
0:23:42 > 0:23:45the whole continent is, so that's had a really bad impact
0:23:45 > 0:23:48in the long-term relationship with Africa
0:23:48 > 0:23:50and doing trade there, in terms of immigration,
0:23:50 > 0:23:54in terms of tourism, and this is because the charity sector -
0:23:54 > 0:23:56growing all the time to extraordinary degrees -
0:23:56 > 0:23:59has continually put forward this message.
0:23:59 > 0:24:02In Ethiopia, there are now 200 times more charities than there were there.
0:24:02 > 0:24:05It's become a boom industry and they're all pushing the same message,
0:24:05 > 0:24:08which is very harmful and simplistic.
0:24:08 > 0:24:11In a moment, Jane Cocking, I'll give you a chance to respond to
0:24:11 > 0:24:14the Cambodia point specifically. Randolph Kent,
0:24:14 > 0:24:18you've seen what's said in the Western press, the appeals by the agencies, and the reality.
0:24:18 > 0:24:21Do you recognise the gap that Ian is talking about?
0:24:21 > 0:24:22I recognise the gap,
0:24:22 > 0:24:25but my problem with what you've said is you called it "the charity sector".
0:24:25 > 0:24:28It's not the charity sector, it is
0:24:28 > 0:24:31the way the international community, the West, from the '60s
0:24:31 > 0:24:36and '70s, began to perceive what we saw then as a kind of hapless South.
0:24:36 > 0:24:40People who were unable to deal with their own issues
0:24:40 > 0:24:45and this goes to the very core of the dilemmas that we faced then
0:24:45 > 0:24:47and that we're paying for now.
0:24:47 > 0:24:50Marc DuBois, your agency has sometimes been very critical
0:24:50 > 0:24:52of other agencies on this very question.
0:24:52 > 0:24:54Talking about a con in Somalia,
0:24:54 > 0:24:57people being persuaded that money would do things it wouldn't.
0:24:57 > 0:25:01I think the Somalia example from last year's famine is a good one,
0:25:01 > 0:25:05because I read stories or press releases that
0:25:05 > 0:25:08talked about the perfect storm
0:25:08 > 0:25:11of factors - higher prices,
0:25:11 > 0:25:16the death of livestock, drought - and forgot to mention there was a conflict inside Somalia,
0:25:16 > 0:25:20which is a pretty shocking omission from the perfect storm of factors.
0:25:20 > 0:25:24- And it stopped at the borders, of course.- It did, to a large extent.
0:25:24 > 0:25:28I think in general, and Randolph makes a really good point here,
0:25:28 > 0:25:31there is something about the integrity of how we look
0:25:31 > 0:25:34and how we communicate about the places where we work.
0:25:34 > 0:25:39I think that it is first an operational issue, because,
0:25:39 > 0:25:42as Rony Brauman just said there, propaganda -
0:25:42 > 0:25:45these are horribly polarised situations.
0:25:45 > 0:25:49There is a war going on and victimhood has currency.
0:25:49 > 0:25:52The way you discuss what happens on the ground will suit
0:25:52 > 0:25:56the interests of one side or the other and you have to be
0:25:56 > 0:26:01extremely accurate in how you depict and portray those circumstances.
0:26:01 > 0:26:06The second for me is just that integrity will be challenged now,
0:26:06 > 0:26:09because we no longer control the narrative.
0:26:09 > 0:26:15There are people in places like Uganda responding to the Kony 2012
0:26:15 > 0:26:19video saying, "Wait a second, Joseph Kony left here five years ago."
0:26:19 > 0:26:23We, the aid agencies, the Western journalists,
0:26:23 > 0:26:27the Western community, will no longer control the narrative on what
0:26:27 > 0:26:30goes on there and for that reason alone, we'd better get it right.
0:26:30 > 0:26:33Jane Cocking, I want to ask you to respond to the point about Cambodia,
0:26:33 > 0:26:36because it is a point that's made in the documentary
0:26:36 > 0:26:39and the allegation essentially is that your own nutritionist concluded
0:26:39 > 0:26:42there wasn't famine among the refugees or in the country.
0:26:42 > 0:26:46You, well, sat on his report, really, and didn't publicise
0:26:46 > 0:26:50that fact because you wanted money to feed people.
0:26:50 > 0:26:5334 years on, it's very difficult to say whether or not
0:26:53 > 0:26:57one nutritionist or one manager was right, to be perfectly honest.
0:26:57 > 0:27:01I think we did hear two points of view in the documentary.
0:27:01 > 0:27:07What I know now is that we have developed much clearer ways
0:27:07 > 0:27:10of measuring what people need and actually just going out
0:27:10 > 0:27:12and asking them.
0:27:12 > 0:27:15Our job is simply to ask people what they need,
0:27:15 > 0:27:17when they need it, and do that.
0:27:17 > 0:27:22One point on the images - we can say very clearly again,
0:27:22 > 0:27:24we have learned and we have moved on.
0:27:24 > 0:27:29The images we saw on the screen just now, we would not use now.
0:27:29 > 0:27:32We are signed up to a code of conduct which says
0:27:32 > 0:27:36we will not portray people as victims and certainly
0:27:36 > 0:27:40all of Oxfam's publicity material, all of our fundraising material,
0:27:40 > 0:27:44first and foremost is respectful of those people.
0:27:44 > 0:27:46To be clear, you're not quite pleading guilty to what went wrong,
0:27:46 > 0:27:49but you're accepting that it might have been...
0:27:49 > 0:27:53It could have been, it could not. It's too far distant to tell, to be honest.
0:27:53 > 0:27:55What about the point that Marc DuBois was making
0:27:55 > 0:27:59about governments using victims for propaganda?
0:27:59 > 0:28:01Is that a phenomenon - Biafra is a good case of that -
0:28:01 > 0:28:04but is that a phenomenon that you recognise?
0:28:04 > 0:28:06I think that governments do
0:28:06 > 0:28:10and I think it would be hard to deny that fact.
0:28:10 > 0:28:14But I think one has to put this into, again, a broader context.
0:28:14 > 0:28:18In desperation, what do governments do to try
0:28:18 > 0:28:21and alert the international community, not merely that
0:28:21 > 0:28:26there's starvation, but there's actually potential genocide going on?
0:28:26 > 0:28:29So it's an odd mix, but let me go back if I may,
0:28:29 > 0:28:32because I think the critical point throughout all of this, is...
0:28:32 > 0:28:36is this something that we knew at the start?
0:28:36 > 0:28:40The answer is, we were learning all the time.
0:28:40 > 0:28:42This is not something that we actually understood
0:28:42 > 0:28:44and then distorted.
0:28:44 > 0:28:47This has been an extraordinarily painful learning process
0:28:47 > 0:28:51and I think on the whole, the agencies have been very clear.
0:28:51 > 0:28:54We're learning. I don't think that should be forgotten.
0:28:54 > 0:28:56And the system has improved.
0:28:56 > 0:28:59There is an important point of principle here, Ian Birrell.
0:28:59 > 0:29:05If you're an agency and your ambition is to help people in dire need,
0:29:05 > 0:29:08then you should probably use effective means of getting
0:29:08 > 0:29:12people to give you money, and the sight of a suffering child,
0:29:12 > 0:29:16which is an accurate image, is a very powerful weapon in that.
0:29:16 > 0:29:19Well, except if you keep doing it, A) it can be false at times,
0:29:19 > 0:29:23as we saw with Cambodia - putting forward false images.
0:29:23 > 0:29:24Secondly, it's demeaning.
0:29:24 > 0:29:27Imagine if people were coming here and doing that sort of behaviour.
0:29:27 > 0:29:31Thirdly, you have to look at the wider impact and the wider impact is
0:29:31 > 0:29:34that you can look at all the surveys of how people view Africa as a
0:29:34 > 0:29:38place for trade, tourism, whatever, and they're all very negative.
0:29:38 > 0:29:43There's a reason for that - because you have this vast, booming aid sector,
0:29:43 > 0:29:47backed now by governments, and they're putting forward the same negative imagery.
0:29:47 > 0:29:51I accept that Oxfam has learned and I give them credit for that,
0:29:51 > 0:29:54that they don't use those sort of images any more, in Britain.
0:29:54 > 0:29:57Unfortunately, there are still very major charities in this country
0:29:57 > 0:30:01which do still use exactly the same messaging and it does have an effect,
0:30:01 > 0:30:04a very negative effect, which ultimately, does more harm
0:30:04 > 0:30:06than the good purported to be done in the first place.
0:30:06 > 0:30:10A final word for you, Randolph Kent. You were nodding vigorously there.
0:30:10 > 0:30:13No, I think what Ian's saying is very true.
0:30:13 > 0:30:14I think, however,
0:30:14 > 0:30:18that one has to bear in mind that the system has improved.
0:30:18 > 0:30:23We ARE learning and this is a very, very difficult area to work in.
0:30:23 > 0:30:25I think that has to be...
0:30:25 > 0:30:28There is nothing that actually one comes into
0:30:28 > 0:30:31and that one understands from the outset.
0:30:31 > 0:30:34If I may just say, take a look at Rwanda
0:30:34 > 0:30:38and Rwanda in 1994 was perceived as a standard humanitarian crisis.
0:30:38 > 0:30:41We didn't know how to handle a genocide, but we learned.
0:30:41 > 0:30:45I think this learning issue is fundamental to the dilemma.
0:30:45 > 0:30:49Let's turn now to the question of the neutrality of aid.
0:30:49 > 0:30:52It's a long-standing principle that aid agencies don't take sides
0:30:52 > 0:30:55in a conflict, but the film argues that neutrality can
0:30:55 > 0:30:58very easily be compromised by the pressures of operating
0:30:58 > 0:31:01in conflicts and suggests this can do real damage to
0:31:01 > 0:31:03the cause of humanitarianism.
0:31:05 > 0:31:06Unless you're neutral,
0:31:06 > 0:31:08unless you're seen as being
0:31:08 > 0:31:10balanced in who you're helping,
0:31:10 > 0:31:11you will be seen
0:31:11 > 0:31:13as having taken sides.
0:31:13 > 0:31:18Somalia in 1992, a failed state if ever there was one.
0:31:18 > 0:31:22The fighting between warlords was so intense that agencies found it
0:31:22 > 0:31:26almost impossible to get help to those in need.
0:31:26 > 0:31:29The capital, Mogadishu, has been devastated by the fighting
0:31:29 > 0:31:33and millions of people who fled the war zone are starving.
0:31:35 > 0:31:39I promoted the view that a military intervention by the outside
0:31:39 > 0:31:40was a good idea.
0:31:40 > 0:31:44Operation Restore Hope is underway.
0:31:44 > 0:31:47The full might of the United States Armed Forces was deployed
0:31:47 > 0:31:49to get supplies through.
0:31:49 > 0:31:52At first, the Americans were supported by the agencies,
0:31:52 > 0:31:54but then...
0:31:54 > 0:31:55GUNFIRE
0:31:55 > 0:31:59They decided to shoot at civilian demonstrators
0:31:59 > 0:32:01in order to distribute food.
0:32:01 > 0:32:06As a result, they killed hundreds and hundreds of people
0:32:06 > 0:32:08in the name of humanitarian principles,
0:32:08 > 0:32:10in the name of saving lives.
0:32:10 > 0:32:15Five years later, during the Kosovo war, the agencies again faced
0:32:15 > 0:32:18a dilemma over their relationship with a military force.
0:32:18 > 0:32:21NATO troops were there to keep the peace
0:32:21 > 0:32:23and to provide humanitarian aid.
0:32:23 > 0:32:25But would working with NATO compromise
0:32:25 > 0:32:27the independence of the agencies?
0:32:27 > 0:32:30At the back of my mind is the thought, "Well,
0:32:30 > 0:32:32"this is one of the warring parties."
0:32:32 > 0:32:35If this had been in Africa, I would've been saying to myself,
0:32:35 > 0:32:37"Keep away from these people."
0:32:37 > 0:32:41The dilemma is sharper than ever in Afghanistan today.
0:32:41 > 0:32:43Parts of the country are so dangerous,
0:32:43 > 0:32:46it's impossible to move around without military protection.
0:32:46 > 0:32:50But accepting that, of course, carries the risk that aid agencies
0:32:50 > 0:32:54are identified with Western forces and become targets themselves.
0:32:56 > 0:33:00Perhaps I could pick up with you, because in your world and
0:33:00 > 0:33:04the world of the UN, military force and aid very often go hand-in-hand.
0:33:04 > 0:33:06Is that a problem, do you think?
0:33:06 > 0:33:10It HAS been a problem, I think it's a problem that is gently,
0:33:10 > 0:33:12slowly being resolved, but it will always be complicated.
0:33:12 > 0:33:17Let me make two points that came out of the pieces that we saw.
0:33:17 > 0:33:22The first is one of the fundamental theories of the UN, of the agencies,
0:33:22 > 0:33:25of the system as a whole, is that we don't really know how to engage
0:33:25 > 0:33:30with people effectively who are vulnerable, in need of assistance.
0:33:30 > 0:33:33And this is a really fundamental problem.
0:33:33 > 0:33:35The second thing is,
0:33:35 > 0:33:39let me go back to another point that I think is one of the real tragedies
0:33:39 > 0:33:43of where we are and that is the system does not come together.
0:33:43 > 0:33:49The agencies do not use the UN properly and the donor community
0:33:49 > 0:33:54is as guilty as any for increasing the vulnerability of peoples.
0:33:54 > 0:33:59Let me go back to Marc's point about Somalia and the drought last year.
0:33:59 > 0:34:02We knew, as you know, that this was happening, but basically,
0:34:02 > 0:34:06the donors said, "Well, the facts of the drought were not clear."
0:34:06 > 0:34:08They were VERY clear.
0:34:08 > 0:34:11Every meteorologist knew what was happening,
0:34:11 > 0:34:16but there was sufficient ambiguity to have the donors back off.
0:34:16 > 0:34:18You start with that kind of system
0:34:18 > 0:34:22and the whole thing begins to unravel. In the UN, in the agencies.
0:34:22 > 0:34:26Do you want to respond, Marc, before we talk about the whole question of neutrality?
0:34:26 > 0:34:30I think, actually, the question is the same one as one of independence.
0:34:30 > 0:34:31The aid agencies,
0:34:31 > 0:34:34if they have to wait for the donors to give them money,
0:34:34 > 0:34:37then you end up with what we've seen in Afghanistan or in Somalia -
0:34:37 > 0:34:40an inability to react to those most in need,
0:34:40 > 0:34:43because in Afghanistan, it's not as if the need
0:34:43 > 0:34:49stopped in the territory controlled by the Western forces.
0:34:50 > 0:34:51That's the idea.
0:34:51 > 0:34:54It's not to take sides,
0:34:54 > 0:34:58it's to be independent enough to go where the aid is needed.
0:34:58 > 0:35:02If you are perceived as being part of a Western armada, if you're
0:35:02 > 0:35:06seen as being part of a system, that is essentially Western in
0:35:06 > 0:35:11the way many people perceive it, then you've got crosshairs on your back.
0:35:11 > 0:35:13We are expanding in Afghanistan today,
0:35:13 > 0:35:18because we've talked to the Taliban and the Taliban...
0:35:18 > 0:35:19We've explained who we are,
0:35:19 > 0:35:22explained that we are not there to help build a greater Afghan society
0:35:22 > 0:35:26or deliver democracy, and we've also explained that we're
0:35:26 > 0:35:31not taking money from the British government or the US government or...
0:35:31 > 0:35:34- belligerent in this war.- Jane Cocking, you're bursting to get in.
0:35:36 > 0:35:40Yes, to come back to this point of Somalia and what we learned
0:35:40 > 0:35:42and how we now are,
0:35:42 > 0:35:45I think it's very easy to forget
0:35:45 > 0:35:51that in the mid-1990s, there was
0:35:51 > 0:35:56a whole global political discourse about the use of military assets
0:35:56 > 0:36:00for humanitarian purposes and I worked in Somalia
0:36:00 > 0:36:03and in Kosovo and my goodness, did we learn quickly
0:36:03 > 0:36:05that that was not the right way to go.
0:36:05 > 0:36:10I recall being in Mogadishu while everything was falling apart
0:36:10 > 0:36:13and headlines in the British press saying,
0:36:13 > 0:36:15"The Americans have two enemies in Mogadishu -
0:36:15 > 0:36:18"one is General Aidid and the other one is the aid community."
0:36:18 > 0:36:22That was how far we had distanced ourselves so quickly
0:36:22 > 0:36:25and as Marc says, it is so important.
0:36:25 > 0:36:29We asked British soldiers in Afghanistan who were turning up
0:36:29 > 0:36:34in communities in the early 2000s in civilian clothes
0:36:34 > 0:36:39to win hearts and minds, "Please, put your uniforms back on."
0:36:39 > 0:36:42But what do you do in a case like Afghanistan where it is
0:36:42 > 0:36:45so dangerous? Marc says they talked to the Taliban and that's working,
0:36:45 > 0:36:48but there are parts of the country where you can't
0:36:48 > 0:36:51move around without a soldier to protect you, aren't there?
0:36:51 > 0:36:54You have to make... Again it comes back to the moral dilemma.
0:36:54 > 0:36:56If you are really,
0:36:56 > 0:36:59really going to achieve good
0:36:59 > 0:37:03by making that decision, you may do it.
0:37:03 > 0:37:06But I think the other thing, and the key thing that hasn't come
0:37:06 > 0:37:11through yet about the whole humanitarian aid endeavour,
0:37:11 > 0:37:14and to pick up on a point that Ian made earlier on that this is
0:37:14 > 0:37:19a Western thing, that is another thing which has changed
0:37:19 > 0:37:23beyond all recognition in the last 40 years.
0:37:23 > 0:37:30Humanitarian aid is not exclusively a Western-managed entity.
0:37:30 > 0:37:33The vast majority of people you talk to who've had their lives
0:37:33 > 0:37:36turned upside down by conflict and disaster,
0:37:36 > 0:37:39when you ask them who helped them,
0:37:39 > 0:37:42they say, "It was my neighbour, it was this local organisation."
0:37:42 > 0:37:44Organisations like Oxfam do about 80% of our work
0:37:44 > 0:37:46- through them now.- Very interesting.
0:37:46 > 0:37:49Sorry, Randolph, I just want to bring Ian Birrell in there.
0:37:49 > 0:37:51Oddly enough, this is one area where you
0:37:51 > 0:37:54and Marc DuBois would share the same view,
0:37:54 > 0:37:58when you talk about the Western, almost colonial element in aid.
0:37:58 > 0:38:01No, there definitely is that. In some way,
0:38:01 > 0:38:05this whole area of neutrality, I think, is a slightly bogus thing.
0:38:05 > 0:38:08Obviously when major aid organisations
0:38:08 > 0:38:11are so intertwined with governments and getting so much of their
0:38:11 > 0:38:14resources from governments, and you see them in places like Afghanistan
0:38:14 > 0:38:18acting as an arm of an intervention which is going wrong,
0:38:18 > 0:38:22then that is a problem, but I think the real issue we hear again
0:38:22 > 0:38:25and again is that the aid sector keeps saying, "We're learning
0:38:25 > 0:38:29"from our mistakes," but the trouble is, all this bungling
0:38:29 > 0:38:32and backfiring is happening at the expense of some of the most
0:38:32 > 0:38:36impoverished and poorest, and people suffering hardest in the world,
0:38:36 > 0:38:39and it's just not right for Western groups to go in there
0:38:39 > 0:38:42and intervene and carry on their experiments
0:38:42 > 0:38:44and their practices with such often disastrous effects,
0:38:44 > 0:38:47without having more consideration for the people on the ground,
0:38:47 > 0:38:49who too often get squeezed out of the equation.
0:38:49 > 0:38:52That's why I have a lot of respect for MSF, the way they do operate.
0:38:52 > 0:38:55But so few of the others act in the same way.
0:38:55 > 0:38:59- Randolph Kent...- One of the things that worries me about this whole discussion is
0:38:59 > 0:39:04that we're talking about really very specific, complex emergencies.
0:39:04 > 0:39:07What I think viewers need to bear in mind is that
0:39:07 > 0:39:10the real vulnerability is far larger than that.
0:39:10 > 0:39:14You have millions of people every year in Asia,
0:39:14 > 0:39:18if you like, as victims of natural hazards, etc.
0:39:18 > 0:39:23One mustn't forget that this is a community that really can help
0:39:23 > 0:39:25effectively with the military.
0:39:25 > 0:39:30We do not have the capacity alone, in these situations,
0:39:30 > 0:39:33to deal with the kind of crises we're going to face.
0:39:33 > 0:39:36And unless we actually know how to engage with the military,
0:39:36 > 0:39:40as the vast majority of organisations within south-east Asia
0:39:40 > 0:39:44and south Asia do, without learning about how to deal with
0:39:44 > 0:39:46the private sector more effectively,
0:39:46 > 0:39:50we will not have the capacity, not to deal with the Afghanistans,
0:39:50 > 0:39:54but to deal with the mounting crises that we find around the world.
0:39:54 > 0:39:57We've just got a few minutes left, so let's look ahead to the future.
0:39:57 > 0:40:00Marc DuBois, Jane Cocking said that most help is not now provided
0:40:00 > 0:40:05by Western agencies. Do you see a rise of other countries...
0:40:05 > 0:40:08I mean, the Arab world, Asian countries,
0:40:08 > 0:40:11becoming involved in the way the West has traditionally done?
0:40:11 > 0:40:14Well, I think we see already, in terms of donors,
0:40:14 > 0:40:17but also in terms of organisations - the Turkish Red Crescent, for instance,
0:40:17 > 0:40:22was very active in responding to the crisis in Somalia last year.
0:40:22 > 0:40:25But still, in terms of aid delivered from the outside,
0:40:25 > 0:40:27the numbers still...
0:40:27 > 0:40:31The big players are still delivering a great percentage of that aid.
0:40:31 > 0:40:33I think it will have to change.
0:40:33 > 0:40:37Jane's point, that actually it's neighbours who help each other
0:40:37 > 0:40:40and who save each other right at that moment of crisis,
0:40:40 > 0:40:43and the aid agencies arrive afterwards...
0:40:43 > 0:40:47I think all of that is what we're going to see evolve in the future,
0:40:47 > 0:40:51but at the same time, as a medical organisation, MSF,
0:40:51 > 0:40:55we still send teams out onto the ground and we send them
0:40:55 > 0:40:59from afar because of the political situations you're looking at.
0:40:59 > 0:41:03You need, to a certain extent, to have outsiders who are not
0:41:03 > 0:41:07part of an ethnic group in a particular conflict.
0:41:07 > 0:41:09What do you make of that, Jane?
0:41:09 > 0:41:12Again, it depends on where we're talking about.
0:41:12 > 0:41:16In the vast majority of natural disasters, over time,
0:41:16 > 0:41:20particularly if climate change does what we believe it will,
0:41:20 > 0:41:24then undoubtedly we need to be supporting the development
0:41:24 > 0:41:28of local organisations to deliver local assistance,
0:41:28 > 0:41:31but there will be those situations which are just too big
0:41:31 > 0:41:35for any existing local or national group to be able to
0:41:35 > 0:41:39cope with, and that is where we have to still hold together
0:41:39 > 0:41:42the international response and the compassion
0:41:42 > 0:41:47- and the empathy that humanitarianism really delivers.- Fair point, Ian?
0:41:47 > 0:41:50Of course, there are situations where you need emergency relief.
0:41:50 > 0:41:53No-one would deny that. But the problem is, because we've had this boom,
0:41:53 > 0:41:56we look at what happened in Haiti and 1,000 groups turned up.
0:41:56 > 0:41:59It's utter chaos on the ground. No-one can deal with it.
0:41:59 > 0:42:02Actually, there are so many groups, you need more rationalisation,
0:42:02 > 0:42:05more togetherness, but they all see something like Haiti,
0:42:05 > 0:42:08I'm afraid to say, which I heard time and again in Haiti,
0:42:08 > 0:42:11they see it as an opportunity to raise money. They go in there...
0:42:11 > 0:42:14You did get this chaos on the ground, so you need rationalisation.
0:42:14 > 0:42:17I can feel a whole new argument developing! Very briefly...
0:42:17 > 0:42:20It's a simple point. Haiti was an aid circus,
0:42:20 > 0:42:23but the great majority of people who require humanitarian aid
0:42:23 > 0:42:27are not faced with an aid circus, they're faced with the opposite. There's no-one there.
0:42:27 > 0:42:31Right, I want to ask each of you the same final question.
0:42:31 > 0:42:34If somebody watching this is thinking of giving money,
0:42:34 > 0:42:37what should go through their minds, crucially,
0:42:37 > 0:42:41as a result of the discussion we've had tonight? Ian Birrell?
0:42:41 > 0:42:44I think they should think very carefully about how will it
0:42:44 > 0:42:46really help and ultimately,
0:42:46 > 0:42:48that pound or two they'll give isn't going to be the solution.
0:42:48 > 0:42:51The solution will come from political solutions
0:42:51 > 0:42:54and equally, I'd say that my own industry, the media, has been
0:42:54 > 0:42:57very bad at holding the aid groups to account
0:42:57 > 0:43:00- and working out which are the good or bad guys.- Randolph Kent?
0:43:00 > 0:43:04I think we have to focus more on strengthening local institutions,
0:43:04 > 0:43:07regional organisations etc, so that they can play a far more
0:43:07 > 0:43:10active part and also give, if you like,
0:43:10 > 0:43:12greater emphasis on development,
0:43:12 > 0:43:15things that will make people less vulnerable, so that when a
0:43:15 > 0:43:20crisis happens, they have at least a chance to survive amongst themselves.
0:43:20 > 0:43:25Marc DuBois, what should your donors have in their minds when they're thinking of writing a cheque?
0:43:25 > 0:43:28If they want to save the world, don't write the cheque.
0:43:28 > 0:43:31- If they want to save lives right now, we can do that.- Jane Cocking?
0:43:31 > 0:43:35I would say, "Do I know enough?" and if not, ask.
0:43:35 > 0:43:38But the real thing I would say people should ask themselves is,
0:43:38 > 0:43:42- "If this happened to me and my family, what would- I- want?"
0:43:42 > 0:43:45It's been riveting stuff and very sadly we've run out of time,
0:43:45 > 0:43:48but my thanks to our guests, Marc DuBois
0:43:48 > 0:43:52of Medecins Sans Frontieres, Jane Cocking from Oxfam, Dr Randolph Kent
0:43:52 > 0:43:54of Kings' College, London, and the journalist Ian Birrell.
0:43:54 > 0:43:56From me, good evening.
0:44:14 > 0:44:16Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd