op 18 front pages-converted - The Watson Institute for International ...

e a time-consuming process of months or even years, during
which humanitarian operations may have to be held in abeyance,
however excruciating the need. The discipline involved
in saying “no” is exceptionally difficult for organizations
whose very reason for being is thereby frustrated. Proponents
believe, however, that short-term pain is offset by longer term
gain.
While pragmatism allows for greater flexibility, it may
result in injecting political considerations into the conduct of
humanitarian operations. Pragmatism also may involve a lack
of consistency. Different U.N. organizations sized up the
trade-offs differently. Unlike the situation in Mostar involving
UNPROFOR, UNHCR in another set of circumstances refused
to accept an exchange of prisoners between Serbs and Muslims
as a precondition for access to civilians in Bosnian Serb-held
territory. On another occasion, when a UNHCR-organized
convoy was intercepted at a roadblock, one U.N. humanitarian
agency sought to negotiate independently the release of its
own trucks. A U.N. system-wide strategy for dealing with
such matters was lacking.
The more pragmatic approach also runs the risk of being
forced to make ever-greater concessions. The initial hole is
small when the screw is inserted, explained a U.N. official.
After a few turns of the screwdriver, however, the screw
begins to bite. UNHCR, which earlier had agreed to assist
Bosnian Serbs somewhat disproportionately to their actual
needs, was reported in late 1993 to be considering trading fuel
oil, much-needed by the Serbs, for greater access to Muslim
enclaves imperiled by approaching winter.
In any event, the Balkan scene proved to be one in which
agreements came—and went—more easily than elsewhere.
“You have to learn to function in a world without durable
commitments,” remarked an ICRC delegate. Both the principled
and the pragmatic would have agreed with the observation
by a UNHCR protection officer that “Nothing is without
its price here.” Accepting access under restrictive terms
had its drawbacks, as did refusing to accept such access.
Practitioners of both schools went public to apply pressure
on the belligerents and on occasion to condemn them. Not
given to public denunciations, the ICRC issued more of them
80