In the former Eastern Zaire, the only choice we could give to refugees whom we could find in the rain forest was to either leave them at the mercy of killers, or help them return to Rwanda, to deeply divided, and sometimes hostile communities. The complexities of humanitarian disasters dictate that, while the impulse to save people in danger may be simple, the act of rescue is not. At times, they may end up harming some of the very people they were intended to help. If the disasters of this decade have had any positive outcomes, dispelling this kind of naivete may be one of them. But it would be futile if naivete were replaced by cynicism or paralysis.
Humanitarianism has to be smart, effective as well as compassionate.
Because humanitarian organizations have developed considerable expertise in providing food, water, sanitation and shelter, saving lives at least offers the morality of a relatively sure option. There are dangers in operating with an overly simplistic model. The parable of the Good Samaritan is just a parable. It is not a guide to operations. The victim in need of rescue is not often completely passive and helpless.