It frames the problem and defines response, rights and therefore
responsibilities. It defines whether a medical or humanitarian response is
adequate. And it defines whether a political response is inadequate. No one
calls a rape a complex gynecologic [sic] emergency. A rape is a rape, just as a
genocide is a genocide. And both are a crime. For MSF, this is the
humanitarian act: to seek to relieve suffering, to seek to restore autonomy,
to witness to the truth of injustice, and to insist on political responsibility.^24The overall thrust of Orbinski’s quote is that humanitarianism should not be
deployed politically to turn a political problem of crime and injustice, such as a rape,
into a technical problem, such as a “complex gynaecological emergency”. The point
is eloquently put, with the latter formulation alone exposing much of the absurdity
of the way the rhetoric of humanitarian emergency can be deployed. Yet while the
argument underscores the limitations of humanitarian responses, it simultaneously
asserts the authority of a humanitarian voice grounded in its technical engagement
with human suffering. The paradox that Orbinski dodges is that as a doctor, in terms
of the practical measures he can take, a rape is actually a “complex gynaecological
emergency”, when it comes to the practical relief of its consequences. Orbinksi is
able to name a rape because of his knowledge of the medical consequences of rape
as a “complex gynaecological emergency”. Humanitarian action is thus clearly
conceived as both treating symptoms and naming causes. Indeed, the naming of a
rape, or a genocide, becomes a quintessentially humanitarian act precisely through
the rejection of the humanitarian act being pinned down exclusively in terms of the
treatment of “complex gynaecological emergencies”.
It turns out, then, that for Orbinski humanitarianism has to deal with socially
and politically embedded suffering if it is not to fall into the same empty language
as those it sets itself against. Though Orbinski differentiates between the
humanitarian and the political, restoring autonomy, bearing witness, and insisting
on political responsibility are all in some sense political acts. This reveals the key
tension many humanitarians feel. They want to be able to make unanswerable
assertions about suffering, to find a space outside politics where that suffering
cannot be relativised, diminished or questioned. Yet, finding their capacities to be
24
Orbinski, "Nobel Lecture".