On Thursday, May 3, a group of four armed men broke into BRAC staff residence in the western province of Ghor. This incident sadly resulted in the tragic loss of the life of one of our field representatives. It’s a grave time indeed for our friends back in Afghanistan. It’s a time for courage and self-reflection – but most importantly, it’s the time for people back home to acknowledge the grueling hardships faced by our field staff in BRAC offices around the world. Countries like Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Pakistan can be incredibly dangerous places to be, but it’s precisely the kind of environment our field staff sought out throughout their careers. This dreadful incident is a reminder of the hostile worlds exposed to our field staff. Understanding these complex environments will not only encourage and develop initiatives to ensure their safety, but also help us value those who have lost their lives striving to serve the community.
Since 2002, BRAC is doing a tremendous job in delivering successful programs to a number of developing countries. BRAC’s programs in Afghanistan alone provides medical services to more than 3.5 million individuals and has educated more than 146,000 students. Thousands of rural households are benefited from poultry and livestock training and receive greater credit support through microfinance. In addition to impeccable leadership, we have highly motivated and energetic staff to thank for these growing numbers. But developing countries are often subject to a number of unstable conditions. In areas of conflict these risks often multiply; politically-motivated violence, extremism, robbery, poor sanitation, poor medical facilities and substandard treatments, to name a few. And while development work comes with some risks involved, field workers constantly hone their ability to negotiate with unsavory regimes and endure very real challenges. Field representatives know the risks of crossing oceans or pressing through to remote areas to provide services in hard to reach areas, in what are by definition, the least hospitable corners of the planet. According to a 2010 survey by Humanitarian Outcomes, some 242 aid workers were killed, up from 91 a decade ago. This clearly underscores how many attacks on aid workers have become intentional, rather than a side effect of a war torn country.
“People have to realize there was no golden period of humanitarian aid. In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we hoped the world would be easier to work in. But then we faced Somalia in the early ’90s and the Bosnian war and the genocide in Rwanda, and we had enough examples to let you know that times had not changed.” – Michael Neuman, Head of Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) missions in North Sudan and Niger.
Neuman co-authored a book, “Humanitarian Negotiations Revealed”, that looks at a number of case studies in which MSF field staff made judgment calls, at times deciding to overlook a government’s inhuman actions in order to sustain facilities for larger dependent communities. Neuman points out the dilemmas faced by aid workers in a chaotic world and a self criticism of how MSF sometimes, deliberately fails to respond to crisis.
This brings focus to a key question: What is an acceptable level of compromise for a field worker? And what measures can an NGO take to counter or better yet, prepare an individual for the worst?
Overall, different field workers face different security concerns and in hindsight it’s easier to speculate on how things can be done differently. Many risks can be controlled through better preparation and by making sure field staff fully understand the intricacies of these highly volatile environments. NGOs in the past have done this by preparing security plans, training and briefing teams before deploying them to a new location. We can never be certain of how much of this can really help, but as the old saying goes “All things are ready, if our minds be so”.
