♦ Not breaking the rules Not playing the game A study of assistance to countries at war (1997-2001) Zoe Marriage London School of Economics PhD UMI Number: U615248 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615248 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 i } Libr^v BrtWfi uwwy' ■ '°"r,cal and fefl*** Science F S2 91 WkDyZ Abstract Why do the humanitarian principles, human rights and other aims espoused by NGOs apparently fail to influence the reality of assistance delivery, whilst reality does not dint these objectives? Drawing on literature concerning assistance, the political economy in which it is given, and psychological dimensions of regulation, I investigate the nature and function of objectives stated by aid providers. I argue that whereas discourse is manoeuvred to approve whatever NGOs undertake, the assistance delivered is so far from its objectives as to question what guidance they offer and their strategic merit. Additionally, the NGOs’ approach disregards failure by allowing operational weaknesses to blame or discredit others, rather than being acknowledged to reflect on interventions. This screens assistance from evaluation or reform, whilst overlooking on-going suffering. My methodology combines an analysis of donor and NGO policy-making with an empirical investigation of how people are given, or excluded from, assistance. I find that aid agencies maximise returns on a politically constructed morality. Where these are high, as in the cases of Sierra Leone and Rwanda, a consensus of sorts is reached between aid providers and governments, and some people benefit from assistance. The consensus, though, marginalises opposition groups and people in their territory. In the Democratic Republic of Congo and southern Sudan, no consensus emerged and the contexts offered nothing to aid providers; most people received no genuine help. In all countries, NGOs deemed political and military activity illegitimate, thereby forestalling dialogue and limiting their perception of the situation; these factors cast doubt on the sincerity of the interventions. I conclude that people in countries at war are not ‘breaking the rules’ of assistance - as assistance is not meaningfully ‘ruled’ by rights or principles - they are more fundamentally ‘not playing the game’. 2 Acknowledgements My first thanks go to Dr Teddy Brett and Dr Tim Allen for encouraging me to embark on this adventure. Surprise struck nine hours into my first trip when I found myself on a Friday night in Guinea, which was not where I thought I was going. Stranded for the weekend, I had a drink with Ishmael; like the angel, he mentioned, slightly alarmed that I had got lost so quickly. The following years have been outstanding both in terms of what I have learned and for the immense generosity that I have experienced. I hope to remember it all forever. The PhD was funded by the Economic Social Research Council, and I am grateful for that. Thanks also are due to Oxfam, in collaboration with whom I undertook the research. I owe particular thanks to Paul Smith Lomas, for his open-handed supervision and facilitation of my work; I appreciate, too, the help with logistics and contacts that I have received from many others on Oxfam’s staff in Oxford and overseas. At the London School of Economics, I am gratefully indebted to my supervisor Dr David Keen, who has been a touchstone of justice throughout, as well as being an exceptional guide and inspiration. I received phenomenal support whilst abroad. Returning from a day motorcycling round the moonscapes of southern Sierra Leone, my co-rider observed, “it was a wonder time,” which was exactly right. Many thanks to many people for insights, lifts, laughs and safety; specific thank yous to Liz Hughes, Claire Light, Legacy Sankoh and Victor Kalie Kamara in Sierra Leone. In Congo, thanks to Armand for his sense of humour and sense of life. In Sudan and Kenya, I am grateful variously for loads of time, knowledge and direction from John Ryle, Philip Winter, Esther Mombo, Roberto, Sam Nyika, Margaret Scopas, Matthew Emeo, Mario Deng Bol, Nina Seres, Pamela Wasonga, Anthony Wani, Steve Ngugi and Amos Maganga. In the UK, particular gratitude goes to friends in the department: Drucilla Daley, Freda Bear, Luis Mah Silva, Markus Goldstein, Matthew Fielden, Rachel Wrangham, Sue Redgrave and Thi Minh Ngo. Arion Deol and Rupert Prudom - thank you for technical support, and thanks to Stephanie Davies for sorting me out so many times. I extend extra-special appreciation to some who have taught me lots: Alexis Rwabizambuga, Jok Madut Jok, Joseph Vandy, Kwabena Larbi, and Philippa Atkinson. Away from the thesis, huge thanks and love to people who are close to me: my parents, my housemates Ruth, Richard, Lucy and Polly, and other fantastic friends - Laura, Charlie, Gaz, Emma and Gaelle; thanks to Tara and David W for the tunes, and Daniel and Emilie for juggling between paragraphs. For the music and magic: Patrick, Helen and David - totally massive cheers. 3 Table of contents Abstract........................................................................................................................................2 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 3 Table of contents ..........................................................................................................................4 Table of figures............................................................................................................................6 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................7 1. Some surprises and no referee .......................................................................................... 9 Thesis............................................................................................................................................ 9 Research problem........................................................................................................................10 Providing assistance ............................................................................................................11 Players ............................................................................................................................ 11 The rules .........................................................................................................................14 How does it work? ..........................................................................................................16 Research questions and argument ...............................................................................................21 Methodology............................................................................................................................... 22 Analytical approach ........................................................................................................... 24 Challenges posed ........................................................................................................... 25 Inverting the inquiry ......................................................................................................25 Theoretical framework....................................................................................................... 26 Coping with cognitive dissonance ................................................................................. 27 Stage one: morality........................................................................................................ 28 Stage two: influence ....................................................................................................... 35 Stage three: impunity .....................................................................................................41 Structure of the thesis .................................................................................................................. 46 2. DFID: a new humanitarianism ........................................................................................48 What DFID says ..........................................................................................................................48 What DFID does ..........................................................................................................................50 Sierra Leone ........................................................................................................................51 Rwanda ............................................................................................................................... 58 Congo................................................................................................................................. 64 Southern Sudan .................................................................................................................