NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a French organisation who bring medical treatment to people in poor countries. They have pulled out of Afghanistan recently because the country is too dangerous. On the news, an American Army spokesman said something like 'security isn't a good enough reason for an organisation to pull aid out of a country'. I think this is pretty dumb, because this was an organisation made up of unarmed volunteers and they kept being killed. That's a pretty good reason if you ask me. Also, why should the army rely on aid from charities? Surely that's extra and if an organisation pulling out does so much damage, shouldn't they have come up with a contingency plan? Also, if the country's now so dangerous, that's not particularly good liberating is it?

I'm glad someone brought this up. It shows what a sorry state Afghanistan is in when MSF withdraws.

OK, someone really needs to get their act together if a volunteer health organization withdraws from their country. You think that'd send a message to everyone, especially the militants killing these guys.

OK, someone really needs to get their act together if a volunteer health organization withdraws from their country. You think that'd send a message to everyone, especially the militants killing these guys.

The problem is that the army (and the governement in general) relies to heavily on NGOs to do the work THEY should be providing. So when the Food Bank closes a location due to lack of funds, you hear politicians howling about how that NGO has let the people down. Wake up! Charities can't do the job of the government!

I know. These guys are doctors. They have devouted their lives toward making the world a better place, but when they are being killed, then even they can question why they are staying in an area that is a threat to them.

I know. These guys are doctors. They have devouted their lives toward making the world a better place, but when they are being killed, then even they can question why they are staying in an area that is a threat to them.

I don't know the specifics here..but it seems as if they should have contracted with the local chieftain or warlord for security..thus ensuring that any attack against the doctors would merit a swift and sure retaliation by his security element.

They know how to be safe, they've been around for decades. The position is now untenable though. Very bad news.

They know how to be safe, they've been around for decades. The position is now untenable though. Very bad news.

What I meant is that I know they've been around for decades..but if what I recall is right..they've always maintained a neutral stance...and not dealt with the locals for security...as if them stating they were neutral was enough. What they fail to realize, no one is neutral in that country.

They know how to be safe, they've been around for decades. The position is now untenable though. Very bad news.
I agree, it's very sad that they have to withdraw.

I mean, if they pull out, that says A LOT about the situation

I hate to derail your screed, but the problem, according to MSF, is government going in and doing the type of work done by MSF. Because government teams come in and do the same work as the NGOs, the indigenes confuse the legitimate aid workers with the government workers (effectively stodges) and diminish the neutrality of the aid workers. Take a look at the MSF's Leplomb and her comments on the PRTs in Afghanistan, try RFE.

I expect M. Siepmann's (it was Siepmann wasn't it?) remarks were probably in response to the percieved increased politicization of MSF, something I reserve judgement on, and a blief the MSF was using safety as an excuse to pull out instead of their real reason.

I have to agree. When MSF pulls out because it isn't safe, things are *BAD*.

:(

I have to agree. When MSF pulls out because it isn't safe, things are *BAD*.

:(

and that's the sad part. I pity those who really need the help but can't get it because a bunch of irrational militants are attacking those who have come to help.

I think it could be a political move

these are fairly liberal people and they were willing to stay through the taliban but not the US army?

I think it could be a political move

these are fairly liberal people and they were willing to stay through the taliban but not the US army?

These are neutral people. That they've pulled out because 5 doctors, who were ther as complete neutrals, were killed says alot. It is akin to the ICRC pulling out. Bad news.

I'm glad someone brought this up. It shows what a sorry state Afghanistan is in when MSF withdraws.
No, it would take the Red Cross pulling out or something to show how bad Afghanistan is. MSF is french. The french invented cheese and the art of surrender. No big deal when they pull out of the the Afghanistan.

I think it could be a political move

these are fairly liberal people and they were willing to stay through the taliban but not the US army?My guesses and opinions for what they are worth:

I personally doubt it (the pull out) was political, although it could have been. MSF has a history of running when attacked (Somalia, Kenya and such).

I suspect MSF may be becoming more politicized, but I reserve judgement. It is not that there is no evidence to support the claim, but that I question the significance and interpertation of the evidence.

I know that there is an increased sense in some politcal circles that MSF is becoming more politicized.

I consider the most likely reason for Siepmann's (if it was Siepmann) comment was a belief on his part that the MSF pull out was political.

***edit to remove "long" from before history as it gives the wrong impression. MSF has pulled out when threatened before, and the action is not inconsistant with their history. Likewise MSF has at times refused to pull out when their safety was threatened, so remaining would not be inconsistant with their history.***

No, it would take the Red Cross pulling out or something to show how bad Afghanistan is. MSF is french. The french invented cheese and the art of surrender. No big deal when they pull out of the the Afghanistan.
I'm afraid, oh possessor of inordinately long and eye-wateringly green signatures, that MSF are more consistently neutral then the Red Cross, arguably more hardy and not to be sniffed at just because of some deluded notion of French cowardice.

MSF is not just French, they have offices in many nations. For instance in Belgium where it is called "Artsen Zonder Grenzen" (Doctors without Borders) one of the persons killed there was infact a Belgian women. And surrender is not in our book.
The men who did this supported the taliban, the Taliban already apologized for this mistake.

MSF will never ask security from local warlords, that will destroy their possibly to work as neutral organization. If they ask help of a Tajik or Hazara warlord then they will be seen as enemies by the Pashtuns in the South.

This is my family's favourite charity. We were sadden when they made the choice to pull out. We knew it was getting bad when that happened. If the Canadians pull out, then you know the situation has gone to hell because the peacekeepers won't stay.