In the late 1970’s, the “without borders” associations flourished on this basis. In a context of assistance to civil population, they stood for the necessity of global access to the victims, the total independence towards any form of power, of political or religious influence. They mainly relied on non-institutional funds.
In the early 1990’s, changes occurred faster, each new major crisis leading towards important innovations in the practical and ethical fields. Paradoxically, it is in Sudan in 1989 that a government gave for the first time access to humanitarian assistance to a region held by the rebels (the Popular Movement to Free Sudan or PMFS). Both parties accepted not to hinder the efforts of a pool of approximately forty non governmental organizations and United Nations agencies, who intended to support innocent populations within the framework of the operation "Lifeline Sudan ". Whereas the situation seemed to be desperate, tens of thousands of lives have been saved.
In 1990, in Iraqi Kurdistan, coalition forces delimited a «protected zone» within a sovereign country in order to protect Kurd populations. Some governments have since qualified their military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan as «purely humanitarian», thus leading to the confusion between the roles and objectives of political and military actors on the one side and humanitarian actors on the other side. This raises serious problems in terms of perception of the neutrality of humanitarian assistance.
The tragic incidents which occurred in the past years, such as the bombing of the U.N. peacekeeping forces camp in Baghdad in August 2003, the murder of 17 staff members of the French NGO (Action against Hunger) in Sri Lanka in 2006, or the humanitarian workers taken as hostages in Somalia or recently in Sudan lead ISO to give further thought to the issue of the security of expatriates. It has always been To carry out humanitarian activities in armed conflict or violence stricken areas has always been dangerous. At any time of the day, humanitarian workers are asked to enter the scenes where fights took place, or to cross the front lines between opposing parties. They meet various weapon carriers, ranging from soldiers to police officers, from paramilitary forces to rebels, from child soldiers to mercenaries. They also have to face acts of violence which are not related to conflicts (sexual attacks, armed robbery, harassment…) whereas they are striving to help the needy populations.
However, even though insecurity is often related to circumstances that NGOs have no hold on, its impact can be reduced through the learning of a behaviour adapted to different eventualities.
We obviously needed to set-up the basis of a well-defined and evolving institutional framework, sustained by the experience gathered on the field, and aiming at helping humanitarian workers to avoid some pitfalls potentially leading to perilous situations.
The following factors are necessary for the good management of the security conditions on the field: consistency of the programmes carried out, adequate practices from the actors on the field as well as their capacity to communicate with the beneficiary populations.
« The fact that the young men and women who come to these regions in order to bring assistance become targets is unacceptable and really dismaying. They are not at war with anyone. They are there because they want to help; they are there because they feel compassion, they are there because they understand human condition and they want to do all that is in their power to help. The fact that these human beings become targets for the rebels or for governmental forces waging wars against each other is unforgivable.”
Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations.
