No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 January 2010
Countries at peace have a hard time understanding wars. That is why humanitarian organizations are so often asked to comment on and explain hostilities to the outside world. At a time when humanitarian operations are being carried out ever closer to the actual fighting, media coverage of the fighting—largely aimed at a far-away audience, at the West—is growing on television screens around the world. In order to stand out against the competition, to be visible to donors, to raise funds or to denounce atrocities, humanitarian organizations are increasingly joining the race for air time, and their survival may depend on how they place. Yet because they speak continually for and to the West and because they appear time and again on television, it is on the basis of this media image—which has the effect of underscoring their allegiance to the Western world—that the warring parties end up forming an opinion about these organizations' activities. The rejection being suffered ever more frequently by humanitarian organizations in the field is very likely strengthened, and sometimes even caused, by such jockeying for media exposure; for that exposure enhances the perception that they belong to an ideological camp whose political, economic and cultural interests are one of the issues at stake in today's major conflicts.
1 At the ICRC such communication goes under the name “dissemination”, a term derived from the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, the States party to which undertake to respect and ensure respect for the law but also to make it as widely known as possible. The ICRC has been given the particular mandate of helping the States promote compliance with international humanitarian law.
2 We are naturally referring to humanitarian work conducted in accordance with strict principles, in particular those laid down in the “Principles of conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in disaster response programmes” ( IRRC No. 310, 01–02 1996, pp. 120–123).Google Scholar
3 See pp. 357–371 in this issue.
4 See article by Édith Baeriswyl, pp. 357–371