MSc International Development and Humanitarian Emergencies student’s Derya Ekin and Ema Fournier share their reflections on the ID Department Cumberland Lodge trip (1-3 November) which was themed around the challenges of humanitarian access in contemporary emergencies.
Upon our arrival at Windsor Great Park, we were captivated by the stunning 17th century building, once home to notable figures such as William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, and Princess Helen, daughter of Queen Victoria. The King’s Speech was filmed here, complete with a signed photo of Colin Firth.
Our first evening involved an introduction to the lodge’s ethos. Cumberland Lodge Fellow, Mattia Emma, shared the story of the lodge’s founder, Amy Buller, a staunch advocate for encouraging dialogue in challenging circumstances. She had facilitated conversations between British academics and the leaders of Nazi Germany to understand the rise of radical National Socialism. Though controversial at the time, her work emphasised the importance of engaging in conversation, even with adversaries, to foster understanding and resolution.
The next morning, some of us rose early for a refreshing run around Cow Pond, surrounded by fall foliage, followed by a yoga session and hearty breakfast.
Then, Professor Stuart Gordon delivered a lecture on safe areas and civilian protection, highlighting how safe areas, originally intended for humanitarian protection, have evolved into political tools and strategic commodities, especially in conflict zones like Bosnia and Syria. Professor Gordon described how safe areas were exploited for strategic gain by both Bosnian Serbs and Muslims. The Bosnian Muslims, for instance, used UN-designated safe areas as a shield while launching attacks on Serbs, who in turn escalated violence elsewhere, seeing a tacit acceptance of danger outside the protected zones. What struck me most was how the role of the UN, while intended to protect civilians, became more about deterrence and monitoring, with little authority to act decisively or forcefully. The Srebrenica massacre, Professor Gordon pointed out, was the tragic consequence of political manipulation reducing civilians to “bare life” and trapping them in what essentially became an open-air prison.
What was equally unsettling was how this dynamic plays out in Syria today, where safe areas are influenced by a complex mix of political, military, and humanitarian interests, with various actors using them for strategic leverage, refugee management, and control. What began as a humanitarian safeguard has become a form of “bricolage”, blending strategic objectives with the rhetoric of humanitarian protection, driven by norms and the symbolism of international humanitarian law. Though intended for protection, these areas often become sites of political contestation and control, raising concerns about whether they genuinely provide safety or merely entrap civilians in perilous conditions.
Professor Gordon’s talk made me think about the gaps between the ideal of protection and the harsh realities of these zones. Are they offering safety or are they entrapping civilians in the very dangers they were designed to prevent? To what extent is humanitarianism in these contexts a form of containment and control?
Next, Dr. Assaimi Abdou, from MSF, led a powerful discussion about the complexities and growing challenges humanitarian organisations face in accessing conflict zones, particularly in places like Sub-Saharan Africa. Dr. Abdou noted several administrative and physical barriers to access but explained how MSF overcomes these hurdles by understanding context-specific dynamics, finding common ground, and highlighting the urgent need for medical assistance. When negotiations fail, MSF is unafraid to speak out- “speaking out is in their DNA.” This advocacy is key to their mission, grounded in impartiality and humanitarian principles rather than political agendas.
I found Dr. Abdou’s thoughts on MSF’s internal challenges particularly eye-opening. He pointed out that MSF must address gender disproportionality within its leadership, improve collaboration with other organisations, and prioritise localisation—helping local communities to build the capacity to respond to crises independently. He believes these steps are crucial for MSF to continue having a meaningful and lasting impact.
After a brief tea and coffee break, Professor David Keen gave a talk about sieges, which got me thinking more deeply about the politics behind aid in conflict zones. He explained how sieges, like those in Sudan and Gaza, aren’t just military strategies but often involve political and economic goals, using civilians as leverage. One particularly powerful point Keen made was about the difficult dilemma faced by aid workers in conflict zones: should they remain silent to maintain access, or speak out against atrocities? He pointed to MSF’s gradual shift from silence to advocacy, particularly with the 1990s Operation Lifeline Sudan, where aid agencies publicly broke ranks to call attention to the crisis. This was a pivotal moment in which humanitarian efforts gained better access to southern Sudan.
Professor Keen also discussed how governments, like Sri Lanka in 2008, use control over humanitarian access as a tool of power, allowing them to shape the narrative around conflicts. By manipulating information and restricting aid, governments can avoid accountability, suppress the true scale of civilian suffering, and maintain control over international perception. This was particularly evident in Sri Lanka, where the government used aid as a cover for their military actions against civilians, while also preventing accurate reporting on the situation. Professor Keen’s talk served as a stark reminder that in these complex, politically charged environments, humanitarian efforts are often caught between providing aid and navigating the political minefield.
After a full day of learning, we enjoyed a relaxing lunch followed by a unique outing to see the wildlife of Great Windsor Park, including red kites, pheasants, colourful parakeets, and majestic red deer. We also stopped at the King George III statue and marvelled at the Windsor Castle which felt like the perfect introduction to life in the UK as an American.
Our wildlife adventures were followed by a fascinating lecture from Dr. Myfanwy James, who shared her insights on humanitarian access in conflict zones based on two years of fieldwork in Northern Kivu, DRC. She highlighted the critical role of national staff, comprising over 90% of MSF’s field workers, who navigate a delicate balance between proximity to the communities they serve and maintaining the organisation’s neutrality. What stood out was how local staff “shapeshift” by adapting their identities based on who they’re working with, especially when dealing with armed groups. This flexibility is key to gaining access and building trust in a volatile environment. It was interesting to learn about how MSF staffers play on their multifarious identities as a tactical survival in negotiating access.
Dr. James also discussed MSF’s complicated stance on “localisation,” where despite claiming not to support it, their long-term presence in places like DRC has inevitably shaped local systems. This made me question the feasibility of short-term aid interventions. For instance, are communities left with dependencies once MSF removes itself? How does the push toward Africanisation away from localisation further solidify existing unequal power structures?
With plenty of questions and food for thought, we all headed to the bar to unwind and dive into a lively pub quiz which was a hit!
On the final day, we were split into groups for a simulation exercise, tasked with representing either the ICRC or CARE. Our challenge was to strategize how to negotiate humanitarian access in a scenario loosely based on the situation in Goma Camp Zaire (now DRC) in late 1994. My group, representing CARE, had to navigate a complex web of actors including the UN, Zairian forces, and militia forces. Through collaborative discussion, we mapped out key stakeholders, assessed our relationship with each, and identified the barriers they posed to our work. By finding mutual interests, we developed a strategy for productive negotiations moving forward. This exercise was both challenging and incredibly rewarding, offering a hands-on opportunity to apply our learning in practice.
Many of us at the LSE are deeply curious and passionate about addressing the most complex social issues of our time. Yet, the pressures of academic life may lead us into intellectual echo chambers where our ideas and perspectives may become insular. Stepping away from the classroom and immersing ourselves in a new environment like the Cumberland Lodge- which offers “space and time for difficult conversations, deep thinking, and reflection”– provided invaluable opportunities for our personal and collective growth. Building on our recent lectures on humanitarian space, access, and security, this retreat allowed us to engage more deeply with these issues, inviting us to ask difficult questions and strengthening peer bonds that I will cherish for years.
Derya Ekin
In the middle of Windsor Great Park, Cumberland Lodge gave us a warm welcome and beautiful scenery. The first evening allowed us to get familiar with the place, and particularly its game room where I’ve witnessed an exhilarating game of pool, am proud to have defeated a couple of classmates at foosball, and was destroyed by Tom at table tennis (what can you do, he uses the pen hold grip). My friends and I might have infiltrated International History’s pub quiz that night… I would argue this was us already getting immersed in the challenges of accessing closed spaces.
We started our Saturday with a lecture on ‘Safe Areas and Civilian Protection – Political and Humanitarian Bricolage’, by Professor Stuart Gordon, getting us familiar with the definition of safe areas, their legal basis, and how they can be instrumentalized. Armed groups, gangs and UN peacekeepers are a fraction of the myriads of actors that can shift the dynamics of these spaces to fit their own strategy and interests: military control, geopolitical leverage, refugee management, diversion of aid…
We were then honored to learn from Dr. Aissami Abdou, Coordinator of Operations in the Sahel Portfolio for Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), who shared his insights on the challenges of humanitarian access as well as MSF’s vision and tactics. The question of sovereignty, how aid is perceived, how humanitarian actors can coordinate their response, and MSF’s focus on the importance of speaking out were some of the issues discussed.
On Saturday morning, Professor David Keen took the stage for a lecture on ‘Sieges and Partial Sieges’, drawing our attention to the way humanitarian access can be used as a bargaining chip to cover underlying abuses. This lecture also touched on the harm done when depriving rebel-led areas of relief, and the need for a better information system on the adequacy of relief.
In the afternoon, we enjoyed the beautiful colors Autumn brought us, walked our way to the top of Windsor’s Long Walk, immortalized it with a group picture and said hi to the Stags on our way back, just in time for Dr. Myfanwy James’ lecture.
It was an excellent conclusion to this day, focusing on how access is negotiated locally in North Kivu. It described MSF’s approach balancing distance and proximity, the importance of shared interests when negotiating, but also how humanitarians’ identities and histories are put to use strategically. It introduced us to the concept of humanitarian shapeshifting: hiding or disclosing certain parts of your identity and playing with this malleability to gain access.
On Sunday, we put our knowledge to use in a simulation where we had to represent ICRC or CARE’s position in a refugee camp in Zaire in 1994, and the organisation’s relationships with armed actors. The simulation immersed us closer to the reality of negotiating, thinking collaborations and independence, and balancing interests, mandates and realities.
This weekend was the perfect combination of learning and bonding, one of the highlights being the fabulous pub quiz that Robin put together (and made my team realise that if future summative assessments turned into a blind test, we would probably get a distinction). We left Cumberland Lodge with new friends and new ideas for our dissertations: what more could we have asked for?
Ema Fournier
The views expressed in this post are those of the author and in no way reflect those of the International Development LSE blog or the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Featured image: