When you donate to a massive charity like Oxfam, you know that some of your cash goes to maintain the shiny corporate image of the organisation but you also imagine the bulk of your donation going straight to places in dire need. Areas of humanitarian disasters where utter desperation rules. Where good people distribute food and necessary supplies, without abusing their position or taking advantage of some of the poorest people in the world.
Often, that is exactly what happens. But, it turns out, there have been instances associated with Oxfam that bring shame on the organisation. Where, instead of giving out aid, aid workers in Haiti got young people to dance for them wearing nothing but Oxfam t-shirts, and where allegations of sexual abuse have been reported in Asia
Of course, it has to be said that not all aid workers are like that. It should go without saying that the vast majority are ethical people who travel to desperate places with great intentions and a strong set of morals, and behave in a way that they can feel proud of.
There will, however, often be an element of a white saviour complex in place, which should be resisted in every direction. The organisations distributing aid have a responsibility to put white saviours in their place and ensure that they do nothing that makes them feel superior and that they do not behave in a way that presents them as better than the people they are there to assist. Add male privilege to the mix, and parties with sex workers may not be as consensual as they look.
When you are utterly desperate, could someone paying you for sex be a form of exploitation? Absolutely, especially when that person is specifically supposed to be there to help.
Is it always exploitation? No, absolutely not. But when there is a significant power differential between the person paying and the person being paid, it is vital that issues of consent are given particular attention. When there is such intense vulnerability, taking note of how freely a person gives their consent is essential.
And, when somebody is underage, they are not a “child prostitute”. They are a victim of sexual exploitation and should always be referred to as such.
Kuba Shand-Baptiste wrote for The Pool about other organisations that have been caught up in similar scandals:
“In Oxfam’s 2011 report on sexual exploitation and other aspects of misconduct by charity workers in Haiti, for example, rather than referring to allegations of the abuse as child sex-trafficking victims, the charity instead chose to say that it could not “be ruled out that any of the prostitutes were under-aged”.
“A 2008 report from Save The Children, another charity currently embroiled in a sexual-abuse scandal, chose to draw attention to the underground culture of sexual exploitation by charity workers abroad, saying that “children as young as six” were “trading sex with aid workers and peacekeepers in exchange for food, money, soap and, in very few cases, luxury items such as mobile phones”.”
It should go without saying that a child “as young as six” is nowhere near capable of consenting to sex, and is being raped in exchange for commodities, not “trading” anything. Shand-Baptiste concludes, “And it all seems to be tied to racism – most notably, the racist assumption that black children are more mature, or less innocent, than their white counterparts.”
None of this is to say that aid workers have no space for fun or enjoyment or down time. But considering how you do this, in a way that does not take advantage of anybody you are tasked with looking after, has to come first on your list. And the reactions from Oxfam itself, as well as thousands of individual supporters (who have cancelled their Direct Debits) and famous representatives like Minnie Driver and Archbishop Desmond Tutu (who have stood down as supporters), suggest that those aid workers in Haiti, as well as others historically elsewhere, have really, really overstepped the mark.
What this is not about
Condemning Oxfam and other charities who have allowed their aid workers to abuse their power is important if those people who are in incredibly vulnerable situations are to stay safe. However, what certain right-wing politicians and pundits have done is use this story as leverage to argue against the British taxpayer contributing to foreign aid at all.
Preposterously posh MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, who has six children and boasts of never having changed a nappy, allows his Roman Catholic views to influence his votes on abortion rights but somehow never lets them persuade him to vote against poverty-causing measures such as benefit cuts. He has now also proposed that foreign aid is “madness” and, even taking the disablism of that terminology out of the equation, it hardly supports his God’s calls for people to help those who are less fortunate than themselves. And Rees-Mogg is, financially, very, very fortunate indeed.
This campaign, led by the rich MP and a prominent newspaper, has led some activists who want to maintain the foreign aid budget to dismiss the allegations about Oxfam as if they are some kind of propaganda against the aid we pay to countries that need it. But we should never throw out the baby with the bath water.
Some Oxfam aid workers screwing up can co-exist with the majority of them being exceptionally good human beings, and we do not have to have an all-or-nothing approach to the accusations. We should not throw potentially exploited Black people under the bus just because we disagree with Rees-Mogg, and we should not abandon all foreign aid just because charities don’t always have control over their troops.
Photo: oxfamnovib/Creative Commons