Scenario: Out The Back Door

Group Size: 4-15

Scenario

You are a Section Commander (Sect Comd) responsible for escorting humanitarian supplies from a large United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) depot to smaller distribution warehouses in some of the outlying towns. You use a combination of military vehicles to escort the supply trucks to the warehouses, where the local UNHCR staff and contractors help unload the vehicles.

You begin to get reports that the supplies are being diverted to local military and para-military forces, and that some are being sold on the black market for personal profit. It appears that the goods are going out the back door as quickly as they arrive. In one case, you witness an army vehicle in the back of the compound being loaded with humanitarian supplies. You confront the staff, but they deny any wrongdoing. You report it to senior staff at the central depot, but they state that their responsibility is the distribution of humanitarian supplies from the depot to the smaller distribution centers and that they have no control over what happens once it leaves their gate. You speak informally about your suspicions with colleagues, and they tend to shrug it off, often commenting, “What do you expect?” More importantly, they point out that if you try to put a stop to it, the local forces may block all humanitarian supplies, and then nothing will get to the people who need help.

Categories

• Principles: Respect the Dignity of all Persons, Serve Canada before Self
• Values: Integrity, Courage
• Cultural themes: Leadership
• Misconduct types: Not Specific
• GBA Plus themes: Culture, Geography, Race/Ethnicity
• Audience: Canadian Armed Forces

Facilitator’s Guide

Learning Objectives

• Discuss the ethical obligations to “Respect the Dignity of all Persons” and “Obey and Support Lawful Authority” in an operational setting.
• Discuss the ethical values of integrity and courage as well as duty, the professional expectation of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) ethos, in an operational setting.

Facilitation Questions

1. What would you do in this situation? What are the considerations?
   • Allow open discussion from the group.
   • Ethical concerns: If no action is taken, some of the aid will continue to be diverted and will not reach those for whom it is intended.
   • Personal factors: You have a compelling need to ensure that the right people receive the humanitarian supplies.
   • Environmental factors: The UNHCR’s presence creates an environment of expectation that the aid will reach the right people. However, the UNHCR staff’s behaviour and attitude, as well as your own colleagues’ indifference, are contributing to the situation.
2. What is the ethical dilemma in this situation? 
   • This is an uncertainty dilemma, where any action taken will result in harm or injury to others.
   • By acknowledging that the act is taking place and then deciding to take action, you may stop the corruption but at the possible risk that all humanitarian supplies may be blocked. In turning a blind eye on the corruption, your inaction may be perceived as implicit endorsement. What are the moral injures that could arise from the decisions made in this ethical scenario?
3. What are some potential courses of action that could be taken in this scenario?
   • Option 1: Arrange to take the supplies and deliver them yourself to the local population. Your chain of command may object to the diversion of resources from your primary mission. Moreover, it sets a precedent. Your actions could antagonize local powers, raising the level of threat to your own personnel and could potentially increase the level of conflict.
   • Option 2: Submit official reports, with evidence where possible, to the chain of command. This may create antagonism between the military and the respective UN agency or non-governmental organization (NGO) and may be seen as interfering in their affairs.
   • Option 3: Leak the information to the media and let them bring pressure to bear on the authorities. This may backfire to a degree if the press implicates the military as being complicit, promoting, or at least turning a blind eye to these actions.