Not taking sides when working with protecting human rights can be tricky. So before heading of to Nepal to join the PBI team I already have set aside time to once again look at what it might mean for me. Thinking it might be helpful to see if the other teams that have been in Nepal since 2005 has some thoughts about this, I look through PBI material.
PBI bases its work on a philosophy of non-violence and work only with groups and organisations that do not argue for violent strategies or use violence. PBI are strict in abiding to the laws of the countries they work in.
OK, fair enough. Nothing strange there. I can see that it might not be so clearcut in the field. After all we are humans. What I do know is that even though my instinct might lead me to feel that violence is a good method, I can't seriously consider the option of 'hitting somebody in order to get them to understand that hitting is wrong'.
PBI does not take part in a conflict, but act inpartially towards the different actors. PBI are pro human rights and want by its international presence support the civil society so that they, by themselves, can create their future. PBI therefor does not take any initiatives to support a group but wait until a request comes in.
After reading this a couple of times I start to wonder abou the universality of human rights. And of different aspects rights such as individual and group rights. Then a wonder about how being non-partisan does not per definition mean that you are non-partial, it means something more. And this needs to be explored. Preferably before field work.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar