| 
The war in Ukraine acts as a catalyst for the resurgence of xenophobic discourse thought to be forgotten, especially when they are hiding behind selective solidarity. Two specialists from Médecins Sans Frontières examine the mechanisms of differentiation in the granting of the right to asylum.
"Humanitarian corridor". In just a few days, these two words have become a common theme in public speeches about Ukraine, evoking the illusion of an ideal solution to the suffering of people trapped in cities surrounded by Russian forces. However, the imperative need to support any initiative that aims to allow civilians who wish to flee a combat zone should not obscure the political instrumentalisation of which humanitarian corridors are sometimes the object, nor the complexity of their implementation.
2020 machte die Covid-19-Pandemie einige der vielen Herausforderungen im humanitären Sektor auch für die breite Öffentlichkeit sichtbar. Auf einmal wurden Todesraten, Engpässe bei der medizinischen Versorgung sowie heikle Entscheidungen in Situationen mit begrenzten Ressourcen weltweit thematisiert und diskutiert. Kaum zur Sprache kam hingegen, dass solche schwierigen Entscheidungen nicht ohne Konsequenzen blieben für diejenigen, die sie fällen und deren direkten Auswirkungen mitansehen mussten.
Für das Konzept des humanitären Korridors gibt es weder einen normativen Rahmen noch eine einheitliche Definition – was es sehr anfällig für politische Interpretationen macht. Der Begriff hat mehrere Bedeutungsverschiebungen erfahren, von der Bezeichnung eines Durchfahrtsrechts bei bewaffneten Konflikten bis hin zu einem erleichterten Zugang angesichts von Grenzsperren oder bürokratischen Zwängen.
In this issue, both the special section on the politics of infectious disease, and the other contributions, highlight and return to concerns that have long plagued humanitarianism. For example, all the contributions give insight into the need to understand the political context in which humanitarianism operates, whether to deliver medical care, to prevent aid being co-opted, or to ensure the dignity of aid recipients used by agencies in their fundraising and communications.
Dresser le bilan de cinquante années d’action humanitaire de Médecins Sans Frontières tout en faisant l’inventaire des défis à venir est un exercice délicat. Avec des activités dans plus de 80 pays grâce à des financements privés approchant les 2 milliards d’euros, l’envergure actuelle de l’organisation est loin de la modeste initiative qui suivit le carnage des années 1960 au Biafra.
Are non-governmental organisations also guilty of double standards? Reviewing humanitarian actors’ approaches to migration in Europe, the author analyses the demands, intentions and dilemmas that drive them.
In the world of international assistance, unsolicited visits by researchers – whether sent from the headquarters of the organisation or from other structures – have long generated conflicting perceptions.
Drawing on the example of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), Françoise Duroch and Emmanuel Noyer review the measures taken by the non-governmental organisation (NGO) to combat sexual violence. The authors show the moral relativism that runs through humanitarian organisations concerned with preserving their public image. Admittedly, the latter are increasingly aware of their obligation to monitor the behaviour of their employees, but the systems need to tackle inequalities, especially gender-based ones.
In October 2020, MSF organised a workshop in Dakar on staff profiling in operations in the Sahel. Profiling involves the selection of staff based on non-professional criteria, including nationality, skin colour, gender and religion. As such, it raises a number of ethical and practical concerns. As a result of profiling, US nationals have not been deployed in MSF operations in Colombia because of the risk of kidnapping, and Chadians and Rwandans have been excluded in the Central African Republic and eastern Democratic Republic of Congo respectively, because of regional conflicts.
|