11 | Guideline: How to Save Lives

Disclaimer 1: This is not a guideline. 

Disclaimer 2: I know I keep saying this, but it is important: What you will read below is my personal opinion, and it does not reflect the position of any organisation/institution I may be affiliated with.  

Saving lives — that's what humanitarians do, right? So I thought I would compile a short guideline on "How to Save Lives".

Saving a life does not sound too difficult. If someone is starving, you give them food. If someone is dying of illness, you provide medicine. Easy, isn't it? As it turns out, saving a life is slightly more difficult than that. 

The NGO I work for, has been working in South Sudan for over 30 years. At the time when we first arrived here, South Sudan was not even its own independent nation. Most of you who are reading this, are older than this country (feeling a bit old now? Apologies). People here have become used to humanitarian assistance.

“You have to go through the falling down in order to learn to walk. It helps to know that you can survive it. That's an education in itself.” (Carol Burnett). I was recently talking to a local friend who has spent a significant amount of her life living in Juba. She shared a very similar idea. Nice analogy — I thought. But what does "falling down" mean for the people who live here? Even more unmet needs in healthcare, education, and other basic needs? Increasing conflict and insecurity?  Survival of the fittest? That's not human-itarian. You and I — as humans — can make conscious choices to support those who are in need of help. It is part of the humanitarian mandate, and (should be) part of what it means to be human. 

That may lead to the conclusion that there is a need for humanitarian assistance in this country. But maybe not to the extent and not in the way it is being delivered. Have international NGOs made it too comfortable for themselves in South Sudan? It is hard to deny that NGOs have become an integral part of the political and social structures. And NGOs keep applying for more funding to stay longer — and save lives. 

A few questions arise: How to balance "learning how to walk" and the seemingly neverending emergencies? Many people in South Sudan have adapted their lifestyle to the presence of humanitarian NGOs. They use acronyms and technical terminology that nobody should have to use unless one takes part in a UN meeting. Over time, they have learned to speak our language — instead of us making much effort to learn theirs. 

Further: Is continuous humanitarian assistance undermining healthy development? Rapid humanitarian assistance is needed in a crisis, and it seems hard to disagree with that. When crisis becomes the norm, how can one ever escape the vicious cycle of neverending emergencies? 

I do not claim to have answers, and I am fully aware that my experience in the humanitarian sector is fairly limited. I am merely making an attempt trying to describe what I seem to see. One thing we probably don't need is another humanitarian NGO claiming to deliver lifesaving assistance. 

As you can see, the process of saving lives is quite straightforward. If someone is starving, you give them food. If someone is dying of illness, you give them medicine. I doubt it, but in case there are still any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. I can assure you I will have an answer, I might even write another guideline. [irony off]

Best, Markus

PS: Hopefully the next blog post will be a bit easier to digest. No promises thought.