The Changing Nature of Humanitarian Aid and Work - Research Paper Example

Politicization of Humanitarian aid CONTENTS Introduction …………………………………………………………………..3 Humanitarian action and threats…………………………………………….4 Role of Politics in aid…………………………………………………………9 Pakistan and Haiti……………………………………………………………10 Role of CNN Effect…………………………………………………………..12 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………..15 References Introduction Human beings are often classified as social and rational animal. Considering the fact that there are numerous other social animal in this world; it is the rationality that distinguishes a human being from other animal. Rationality calls for some rational actions, especially extending the helping hands to those fellow human beings who are in need. Such helps are a culmination of kindheartedness, munificence and compassion directed towards all in need irrespective of their gender, race, religious beliefs, color, nationality and economic or social status. Nonetheless any sort of age bar or their not so glorious past history. In a nutshell, Humanitarianism is the nectar of human soul that might sometime lies dormant but never being dead and it treats every other human being as the mirror image of one’s own. Humanitarianism as an ideology must be brilliant but unless backed by practical action it is fruitless. Following this truth the realization for humanitarian aid took birth. However, what started with a noble outlook and as a pillar to safeguard the humanity; soon fall prey to its own success and became more of a political agenda with a particular selfish purpose to serve rather than serving the entire humanity. The newer organizations wearing the same robe of Red Cross; soon proved to be wolves in ships skin. They often played as puppets and their agendas often encompassed military intervention, the very cause against what humanitarian intervention and aid were formed. This paper initially considers the characteristic of humanitarian action and what kind of threats do these actions respond to. Then it moves to explain the role of politics in aid provided with an example like Haiti and Pakistan. At last it focuses on the role of media popularly known as the CNN effect. The pivotal point of the paper is to consider why, how and what made the humanitarian aid politicized. Humanitarian action and threats The word humanitarian is used largely nowadays and often in a most in appropriate way. Considering this situation it’s our noble onus to clearly define the characteristics of humanitarian action at the very beginning of this paper. Under broad head the basic characteristics of the humanitarian action might be classified as humanity, impartiality and neutrality. These three pillars might be considered as the building blocks of the “International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.”1. These three characteristics deserve special illustration owing to their merit in understanding the humanitarian action. Humanity refers to the fact that each civilian has the right to be protected “from attack torture and other violations of their physical and moral integrity”2 following the international humanitarian law. Here the term humanitarian encompasses and obligates both the parties facing and behind the arms. Moreover, other parties such as third states along with government and nongovernmental organizations are heartily welcome to extend their humanitarian assistance to the victims. The concerned state which is suffering from such armed conflict must arrange immediate impartial relief action that must have food and medicine into their relief basket. This automatically draws out two important conclusions, firstly no boost to the military action going around should be provided by the state and secondly the relief basket should be prepared out of need rather than anything else. The abstinence from extending armed help even if necessary but refused by the state or participatory parties as a characteristic of humanitarian action focuses on the fact that otherwise a humanitarian action might turn into military intervention and battling fire with fire has never yielded positive outcome. A humanitarian action, combined with the threat of application of force to facilitate the action might end up achieving nothing. This happens since it might ignite a sense of disbelief among participatory parties resulting in loss of credibility of that particular humanitarian action. So it’s the consensus among participatory parties in an war ridden state regarding a particular humanitarian action that is necessary to deliver proper humanitarian aid not the military force guided help, which is not the true face of humanity. There is no reason to get gulped within yourself against the very reason you are fighting for3. Humanity if maintained with utmost care would definitely lead to impartiality in terms of oppressed human beings. Impartiality might be defined as “not making any discrimination based on race, nationality, religion, political opinions or any other similar criteria.”4. While considering the sufferers urgency should be the prime priority. Again impartiality does not often regards to equal treatment for all rather it conveys the level of treatment that covers the basic needs of a particular population. Impartiality is of immense importance for long run co-operation between individuals and parties alike. Without impartiality trust will be lost and that will lead to catastrophic results and ultimate breakdown of the humanitarian aid. Here again one can witness the non- compatibility of humanitarian aid and military or any other enforcement measures. The aforesaid situation follows from the fact that non-discrimination and impartiality walks on hand in hand, now if any sort of military force or other enforcement act such as economic sanctions are resorted to facilitate humanitarian aid, it might end up in discrimination or at least a mutual suspicion that one might get discriminated5. Neutrality might be defined as “not taking sides in hostilities, or engaging at any time in controversies of a political, religious or ideological nature”6. However it should never be mixed up that neutrality by any means refers to neutral to human suffering. In other words neutrality never refers to be neutral to a cause of human suffering or anything as such that is associated with the same. Neutrality might be referred as abstinence from any direct or indirect involvement in any military activities that might be ongoing around the particular humanitarian aid action area7. Independence is another most important characteristic of humanitarian aid. Unless a body is independent and subject to some external pressure or answerable to some external authority by no means it can abide by the other characteristics of a humanitarian aid that have been mentioned before. Independence helps a humanitarian-aid to reach there where everything else fail to approach in a peaceful manner. Thus independence “should not be understood as a retreat into isolation…it vital for organizations to concert their operations in the field, in a spirit of complementarily.” 8 The above mentioned characteristics of humanitarian works get echoed in the words of Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) ‘First, the aim of humanitarian action is “to preserve life and human dignity” regarding persons in temporary crisis situations, not to attempt going through societal transformation. Emphasis is placed on the giving of aid as an act guided “by concern for others, not the defense of interests,” and which by nature of its temporary context is “radically different from developmental aid.” Second, humanitarian action is “implemented peacefully and without discrimination by independent and impartial organizations.”Complete political independence is vital, given the tense conditions of war and/or conflict. Independence “is in fact the very condition required to establish an atmosphere of trust” that is necessary for the safety and efficiency of aid workers in the performance of their actions. Finally, underscoring the foundation of humanitarian action in humanistic ethics, MSF emphasizes that the motivations for humanitarian action are as important (if not more so) than actual results of the action. Thus, in MSF’s view “humanitarian action” brings together an ethical commitment to human dignity and politically disinterested concern for others within a temporary crisis situation.’9 After this brief discussion on the characteristics of humanitarian action; a question certainly pops up that at what sort of situations the humanitarian action and aid comes into action. Let us first consider this question from a technical angle. Following the International Humanitarian Law, the humanitarian action is applicable either in international armed conflicts or in non international armed conflicts. Article 3 that was common to four Geneva Conventions that took place in 1949 together with Protocol II states in case of internal armed conflict “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.”10. For International armed conflict the law hovers around to points and both are normative in nature “(1) specific obligations to protect and assist certain categories of victims of war as well as, in a more limited sense, the corresponding rights of those victims; and (2) a general principle of non-discrimination.11” Both these clauses are framed with a view to institutionalize the safeguarding of human dignity under any circumstances. In simple words, a humanitarian action follows from a humanitarian crisis that threatens the life, health and subsistence of a human being to unprecedented level. It has been historically witnessed that such crisis has some pre-conditions in form of chilled penury, backed by immense economic inequality and sometimes social ones as well in form of castes; religion and race. Moreover in most of the cases the basic services that are impossible to ignore in order to maintain life even at a subsistence level are absent. These situations get propelled either by natural calamities or armed conflict. Though from this discussion it might seems that natural calamities and armed conflicts acts as a catalyst rather than the actual cause but in reality often they ignite the necessity of humanitarian action. In this regard after the cold war was over a termed had been coined “complex emergency” that became the precondition of humanitarian action. Ironically such complex emergencies are often paved by the human beings through immense violence that resulted in “human fatalities, forced displacement, epidemics and famine.12” All these along with a dwindling economic and political structure that might be at the brink of total collapse gave a clarion call to the humanitarian action. Here for the first time one might witness the politicization of humanitarian works and aid or may witness the process that a close nexus is forming among them. This is quite easy to understand the term complex emergency differs from ordinary crisis in terms of time frame, inherent nature and massive area of influence. Complex emergencies are long run affair comparing to ordinary crisis, they mostly evolve from political reason or crisis and turns upside down all most all sphere of human lives. In order to respond to such crisis huge number of individuals and agencies get involved and they are from different domain. On one hand such players come from absolute humanitarian back ground and on the other they might be politicians and diplomats and even military personnel who represents the so called peace keeping activities in the disturbed area to enable the humanitarian workers work safely and peacefully with more efficiency. One of the most important objectives of this paper is to highlight such multidisciplinary interaction and portray the fact that humanitarian work and aid have walked miles apart from the particular ideology that had formed its very root and politics, profit and media now determines most of its course of actions. Role of Politics in aid Jeroen Jansen, in his post on Humanitarian, has illustrated this politicization of Humanitarian aid. Jamsen agrees that at its initial phase the humanitarian work and aid was on the right track and achieved significant success towards its ultimate goal. However with success comes fame and fund and those are hard to tackle with feet solidly grounded. Soon the flavor of profit attracted temporary bees who concentrated more on making profit than on humanitarian work. Moreover, the politicians smelled that they can achieve plenty through the package of humanitarian work and aid and soon pounced on this opportunity. Since the developing and less developed countries are mostly at the receiving end of such work and aid, within a wink of an eye the politicians of the developed block found new tools to turn more and more developing and poor nations into mere puppet. Adding to the agony sometimes those nations became the playground of the private organizations, together with greedy politicians and war monger military personnel who formed a cocoon of selfish desire and sucked the life out of those ill fated nations. The humanitarian aid and work that are delivered in this way remained extremely superficial and almost an eye wash that created more problems than solving ones. It might often been able to provide temporary relief but never addressed the root cause of the problem and perhaps intentionally kept it alive. This was done with a view that dependency of those developing and poor nations will remain as a sustainable weapon that can be used at the will of the more developed western nations. In this way the just humanitarianism got replaced by the new humanitarianism which was far from the building pillars of the humanitarian aid and work. It would be unfair to say that just humanism entirely abolished but of course its reach and magnitude has fallen far from what is actually desired13. Pakistan and Haiti The close convergence among, humanitarian aid, military and politics can be witnessed in Pakistan. This is a two way ticket, often the Pakistani Military controls the distribution of humanitarian aid or blocks those in fear of some imaginary threat or as a strategic means to keep some areas subdue for the military advantage. Again the so called donor countries use humanitarian aid as a stabilization policies for certain areas that they might consider strategically important to them. When Pakistan faced the worst possible flood in its history in 2010 (EV 36) the global community showed extreme reluctance to extend funding. Their simple logic was there is no meaning to finance further violence and extremist ideas that grows in Pakistani Soil. A moment of pause might help us to understand the inherent meaning of such action, punishing the mass for the mistakes of a few. Moreover this action does not adhere to any of the principles of humanitarian work and aid that have been discussed before. This was a period when the USA government was becoming overtly suspicious over the Pakistan-Afghan nexus and thus almost started considering Pakistan at the wrong end of their self proclaimed global fight against terrorism. The major interest of foreign aid in Pakistan has been channelized to help its military operation against the North-West tribal terrorist groups “Counter-insurgency, counter-terrorism and stabilization efforts have dominated international engagement with the country. Aid funding has duly followed. The primary focus has been the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), where since 2004 the Pakistani army has been engaged in a military campaign against the armed opposition, the Tehrik-i-Taliban-Pakistan (TTP).”14 It would not be an exaggeration that such assistance has an inherent notion of own protection considering the close proximity of Afghanistan (The former home of Taliban) and Pakistan border along that region. When the international community refused Pakistan their due help facing that terrible flood; the Pakistani military has given their hearts out to provide relief to the people. It is pretty clear that western outlook towards Pakistan is to provide them short run help so that they remain popular to the nation and its people but never resort to long run help so that they manage to overcome their bottleneck forever and the donor countries lost their importance or the role of the messiah. Furthermore in Pakistan that sort of humanitarian aid is used to fuel the political and military motives of both the national and international governments. This eventually leaves the common people of Pakistan as sufferers; as mentioned by Jonathan Whittall “There needs to be a clearer distinction between development activities that, however unwillingly, serve the objectives of the Pakistani government and the West, and a principled, humanitarian approach with an immediate, life-saving goal only. Both are legitimate forms of action, but they need to be distinct; in such an environment, a choice between them needs to be made. In the absence of such a choice, the value of humanitarian principles in gaining access and acceptance is rapidly being eroded. With the devaluation of the humanitarian ‘currency’, it is communities themselves that pay the heaviest price.15” Role of CNN Effect It is inhuman to compare between disasters to prove a point, since lives have lost at both ends, however sometimes no other options are left to put forward some important points. The worst flood in history of Pakistan in 2010 affected 18 million people and even after months of the accrual event millions were in dire need of assistance16. International sentiments and help offered regarding the flood disaster have been discussed before. The same year also witnessed Haiti earthquake on January 12, 201017, that left 300000 dead and 1.5 millions bereft of their home18. Haiti earthquake received a total different approach from the western world. Floods of aid came to the country and thousands of NGOs started working there in order to restore the country in its initial state. Two of the former US Presidents joined hands to raise funds for building back Haiti19 and even recently United Nations sought for another 144 million USD as humanitarian aid20. So what went wrong for Pakistan that gave its problem much less importance than that of Haiti. Situated in western hemisphere might be a positive point for Haiti in drawing attention of the western world and the media. An estimate clearly shows that while Pakistan received S1, 526,210,424 as total donation, Haiti received S3, 316,167,137. In per capita terms Haiti received three times more donations than Pakistan21. As mentioned by Elizabeth Ferris “In the case of Haiti, the flash appeal was issued on 15th January – 3 days after the earthquake. In the case of Pakistan it was launched on 11th August – 12 days after the first OCHA situation report”22 . Though several other explanations were extended for relatively poor response for Pakistan flood victims; such as earthquake are sudden shock in comparison to flood and shakes the world to a greater level, the death toll in Pakistan was far lower than in Haiti that also went against the proper global attention23. But Brookings Institution’s eminent researchers Rebecca Winthorp and Justin Van Fleet; partially blamed the media in terms of their lack of coverage in case of Pakistan. They have shown statistically “in the case of Haiti well over 3000 stories in print and broadcast media within 10 days of the earthquake while Pakistan registered only slightly more than 1,000.24”. This might be called as CNN effect and it is nothing ne that eastern countries under tormenting calamities are receiving late or less response owing to the same. The access and attention of media are nowadays a key factor in receiving humanitarian aid and work. Conclusion Through the above paper we have discussed the changing nature of humanitarian aid and work. The close association between politics and human aid has also been discussed together with military interests. Partiality among countries has also been discussed. This is an era of globalization and free market; hence we cannot ignore profit as a component of human aid. A careful consideration of statistical figures coming out of the US government itself will clarify this issue “According to [U.S] government figures, 1,537 contracts had been awarded [to U.S. Companies] for a total of $204,604,670, as of last fall. Only 23 of the contracts went to Haitian companies, totaling $4,841,426”25. Furthermore the only 1% of relief fund has actually been realized by the Haitian government in a direct way26. This Portrays that modern humanitarian work and aid is a culmination of political, military and business interest. Furthermore the building blocks of the humanitarian work and aid has been shaken long before and nowadays it is nothing but another tool of political maestros who can mould it in their own way to gain maximum possible power and profit. On the other hand it is also true that hope is still alive through the presence of a handful of humanitarian bodies and future of humanitarian works and aids would be determined by their grit and determination. References 1. Basu, Moni and Catriona Davies, Money for aid trickling in for flood-ravaged Pakistan, CNN, 2010, http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/08/17/pakistan.floods.aid/index.html (viewed March 2, 2013) 2. Charles, Jacqueline. UN seeks $144 million in additional humanitarian aid for Haiti, 2012, : http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/12/17/3146513/un-seeks-144-million-in-additional.html#storylink=cpy (viewed March 3, 2013) 3. Cunningham, Oliver. The Humanitarian Aid Regime in the Republic of NGOs, The Josef Korbel Journal of Advanced International Studies4(2012), http://www.du.edu/korbel/jais/journal/volume4/volume4_cunningham.pdf (viewed March 3, 2013) 4. DeChaine. D. Robert Global Humanitarianism: NGOs and the crafting of Community, New York: Lexington Books, 2005 5. Durham, Helen and Timothy L.H. McCornack, The Changing face of Conflict and International Law, Martinus Nijjhof Publishers, 1999 6. Ferris, Elizabeth, Earthquakes and Floods: Comparing Haiti and Pakistan, 2013, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2010/8/26%20earthquakes%20floods%20ferris/0826_earthquakes_floods_ferris.pdf (viewed March 2, 2013) 7. Humanitarian Emergencies and Humanitarian Actions, 2010, http://escolapau.uab.cat/img/programas/alerta/alerta/10/cap04i.pdf (viewed March 1, 2012) 8. Jansen, Jeroen. The politicization of Humanitarian Aid; “just” versus “new” humanitarianism, 2012, http://jjnetherlands.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/the-politicization-of-humanitarian-aid-just-versus-new-humanitarianism/ (viewed March 2, 2013) 9. Levesque, Julie. HAITI: Humanitarian Aid for Earthquake Victims Used to Build Five Star Hotels 2012, http://www.globalresearch.ca/haiti-humanitarian-aid-for-earthquake-victims-used-to-build-five-star-hotels/31646#sthash.qOAHJZlB.dpuf, (viewed March 2, 2013) 10. Pakistan Vs Haiti, 2013, http://awesome.good.is.s3.amazonaws.com/transparency/web/1011/pakistan-vs-haiti/transparency.jpg (viewed March 3, 2013) 11. Pakistan floods still claiming lives, six months on, BBC News, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12308913 (viewed March 2, 2013) 12. Sommaruga, Cornelio, “Keynote Speech”, In Humanitarian Actions and Peace-keeping operations, (Institute of Political Studies of Singapore, 1997 13. Taft-Morales, Maureen and Rhoda Margesson, Haiti Earthquake: Crisis and Response, DIANE, 2011 14. Whittal, Jonathan,‘We don’t trust that’: politicised assistance in North-West Pakistan, HPN, 2011, http://www.odihpn.org/humanitarian-exchange-magazine/issue-49/we-dont-trust-that-politicised-assistance-in-north-west-pakistan (viewed March 3, 2013) 15. Valbrun, Majorie,Haitian firms few and far between on reconstruction rosters, iWatch News, January 11, 2012, http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/01/11/7846/haitian-firms-few-and-far-between-reconstruction-rosters (viewed March 2, 2013) Read More