I’m in the DC area this week in support of an information sharing project that was conceived with the intention of taking some fundamental first steps towards overcoming social, organizational, and technological challenges that regularly and continuously plague humanitarian emergencies, disaster responses, and essentially any situation that forces too many interests into too little space and time. I (and, as far as I can tell, the core of the people I work with) firmly believe that this is not a problem space that can be engineered, designed, managed, or similarly reduced to something more palatable. These challenges must be embraced for, rather than in spite of, their complexity, and the vanity of perfect solutions ought to be rigorously questioned. Often lacking, though imminently necessary, is a humble self-awareness of one’s niche in this greater ecosystem in order to come to terms with dynamics that one does not, nor will ever, control.
I enjoyed a layover in Zurich on Sunday morning (enjoyed, I should say, in no small measure due to Galbraith’s illumination of The Affluent Society, which I’ve been reading piecemeal for a shockingly long time), and picked up a complimentary copy of the International Herald Tribune. I was struck by a piece by Christophe Fournier, president of the International Council of Doctors Without Borders. In highlighting the conflicts between strict rule of law efforts and the ability to provide services to afflicted populations on “both sides of the frontline”, he cuts straight to a dilemma of humanitarian work: the need for “constant negotiation with local authorities as well as warring parties, who might be responsible for war crimes.” That is to say, the effective delivery of non-partisan aid stands opposed to interaction with only savory characters. Further, “humanitarian assistance is not necessarily compatible with … the armed protection of civilians.” By extension, governments and security forces seeking to improve cooperation with, or at a minimum raise their own awareness of, non-aligned private organizations must avoid the fallacious tendency to think that neutrality is just another obstacle to be overcome. Interests across organizations may coalesce in a crisis situation, but structuring aid and security plans around the assumption that cooperation can be designed is still a bridge too far. We should also remember that “collaborate” has more than just positive connotations…
I worry that calls for a better exchange of information across organizations will bloat with the jargon of the day and yet lose focus on the real challenges associated with complex operating environments. Reality forces institutional boxes – of governments, of militaries, of NGOs and International Organizations – into shared spaces, but growing one’s own bubble to incorporate the others is not the way forward. Similarly, a resistance to assimilation might underscore a level of credibility superior to that of the sycophants lining up outside your door. Effectively bridging organizational divides must be tied to a long view of the challenges that continue to arise, and quick fixes well within the comfort zone are not the way forward.
