Chapter 29 Review Questions Answer Key

Humanitarian Assistance and Intervention

Humanitarian assistance and the associated subject of humanitarian intervention are often seen as being related to, though still distinct from, development practice. This chapter will consider the points of continuity and disjuncture between humanitarian assistance and intervention, on the one hand, and development, on the other, suggesting that there is much that we can borrow from the study of development that may inform our understanding of humanitarian action. Humanitarian assistance is sometimes referred to as “development on steroids,” referring to the fact that it focuses on short-term, rapidly provided assistance to relieve immediate suffering. Humanitarian assistance is also sometimes hailed as being “apolitical” in that it tries to relieve human suffering but for the most part does not try to address the underlying structural causes of that suffering or to provide more systemic support to prevent recurrence of suffering. That, of course, is an oversimplification, since the dividing lines between humanitarian and development assistance are blurred. [p. 527]

Humanitarian assistance can be provided in response to human-made or natural disasters. Natural disasters are often categorized as either of slow onset (drought, leading to famine, for instance) in that they develop over several years, progressively eroding people’s asset bases, or sudden onset (storms, earthquakes, tsunami, floods, volcanic eruptions), whereby people experience a shock to their livelihoods with little or no warning. Even where these hazards are unavoidable, their impact on human populations is in part a function of the governance system in place, particularly the extent to which preparedness and response are effectively managed. Conflict, of course, is a human-made disaster that can be either sudden or slowly escalating. Very often conflict and natural disasters occur simultaneously, creating what are called complex political emergencies (CPEs) that can take an enormous toll on the ability of local communities to survive. As we shall see in this chapter, however, whether caused by nature or people, all disasters and their responses are also affected by political factors—by political choices, funding priorities, state-society relations, and other dynamics involving power. [p. 527]

Swiss businessman Henri Dunant is the father of modern humanitarianism. Observing the injured soldiers in the battlefield at Solferino, he tried to organize relief for the troops, mobilizing villagers to help care for the wounded and even successfully appealing for the release of several Austrian doctors who had been captured to assist in the effort. After his return to Geneva, Dunant organized a group of prominent members of the elite Genevois society to establish the Permanent International Committee for the Relief of Wounded Soldiers, which later became the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Over the past 150 years, the ICRC has led the way in responding to the needs of those affected by war and disaster. While today it responds to the needs of both combatants and civilians, at first the focus of this work was on responding to the needs of wounded soldiers and prisoners of war. [p. 528]

This refers to a period that started from the end of the Cold War and tended to address new needs in the verge of the collapse of bipolar ideological system. In this period the lines between relief and development work became more blurred and NGOs in some cases became like “mini-states” providing assistance that ideally states should have provided themselves. At the same time, the post-Cold War era has seen a rise in what has come to be seen as humanitarian intervention—military intervention motivated or justified at least in part with reference to humanitarian objectives of saving lives or relieving suffering. In 2001 the principle of the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) was introduced. This principle asserts that a state’s authority and legitimacy come not from its control over a geographic area but rather from its commitment to ensure that its citizens’ basic rights are safeguarded. The age of liberal humanitarianism has also seen a dramatic expansion in the number of humanitarian organizations working in the sector and in the number of individuals employed in it. [pp. 530-1]

The proxy wars by which the United States and Soviet Union fought their Cold War led to bitter conflicts in such diverse places as Angola, Ethiopia, Somalia, Afghanistan, and throughout Central America. These conflicts brought both non-governmental actors and intergovernmental humanitarian response to new areas. Although most NGOs attempted to stake a claim to being non-political, their assistance had great geopolitical significance, and both superpowers sought to use humanitarian assistance as a tool to promote their interests, and conversely to cast humanitarian suffering as a by-product of their opponent’s influence. [p. 530]

Catholic Relief Services (CRS) was founded in 1943 to respond to the needs of World War II survivors in Europe. CRS has been one of the primary recipients of US government funding. Long guided by a passionate faith-based and anti-Communist agenda, CRS used US and other funding to gradually expand in the post-World War II era to become one of the largest global relief organizations. Today, the organization works in 101 countries. Its 2014 Annual Report indicates that 62 per cent of its total income was derived from US public sources. In the first half of 2016, CRS received over $216 million from the US for humanitarian emergency, the third largest recipient of US government funds (after the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Food Programme). CRS represents a category of faith-based NGOs that “see their humanitarian programmes as straddling the church and the secular world, combining social and religious goals” (Stoddard, 2003). While CRS is overtly a faith-based organization, even some of the more professedly secular organizations have roots in religious precepts and traditions. Thus, despite the CRS profile as religious it also falls into the category that Stoddard describes as being “Wilsonian” in that it has consistently worked closely with US funding on relief and development work that aligns with the foreign policy objectives of the US government. This can be seen, for instance, in the fact that CRS has continued to work in Afghanistan with USAID funding long after most other major NGOs departed over concerns about their inability to operate safely as independent aid actors. [p. 534]

Humanitarianism is facing unescapable ethical dilemmas. At its most basic, the goal of humanitarian action is to save lives, but this imperative is muddied by several subsidiary goals—to do no harm (not to let aid contribute, even indirectly, to the suffering of people) and to try to steer a course of ethical decision-making as successfully as possible. This is no easy task; one might say that the work of a humanitarian practitioner is 90 per cent concerned with trying to make judgment calls about prioritization of aid, forms of response, and ways of managing information in which there is no perfect solution. This is done usually with limited information, limited resources, and restricted authority or mandate. Humanitarian workers often feel that no solution is cost-free, and that they are therefore condemned to try to find the “least-worst” option among a range of less than ideal possible actions. [pp. 535-6]

At the same time, the post–Cold War era has seen a rise in what has come to be seen as humanitarian intervention—military intervention motivated or justified at least in part with reference to humanitarian objectives of saving lives or relieving suffering. The military interventions in Iraq in 1990 and again in 2003, Somalia in 1993, Afghanistan beginning in 2001, and the Balkans in the mid-1990s are all examples of interventions for which humanitarian motives were claimed. In each of these cases, civilian and military humanitarian actors have been brought into close and sometimes uncomfortable proximity with one another. In some cases, the military actors are parties to the conflict and are thus legally obliged under the Geneva Conventions discussed above to provide humanitarian and reconstruction support. In others, the intervention is carried out by military forces who are not parties to the conflict, sometimes under the authority of the United Nations and sometimes bilaterally. [p. 531]

In 2001, the principle of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) was introduced. This principle asserts that a state’s authority and legitimacy come not from its control over a geographic area but rather from its commitment to ensure that its citizens’ basic rights are safeguarded. The Responsibility to Protect movement has gained significant traction in the years since (see www.responsibilitytoprotect.org), and the R2P principle is gradually gaining acceptance in customary law as a basic requirement for both states and—crucially—for non-state actors who aspire to one day take the reins of formal state power. [p. 531]

The age of liberal humanitarianism has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of humanitarian organizations working in the sector and in the number of individuals employed in it. The number of people employed in the humanitarian sector is difficult to estimate, although the State of the Humanitarian System annual report for 2018 estimates that in 2017, humanitarian agencies employed approximately 570,000 people in their operations. This figure was 27 per cent more than in 2014. The sector has undergone a rapid process of professionalization whereby humanitarian workers are expected to bring more sophisticated technical skills, managerial capabilities, and cultural and political sensitivity and analytic abilities to their work. [p. 531]

Amid the proliferating world of humanitarian organizations, a few types have emerged. They can be roughly divided into two groups: Dunantist and Wilsonian organizations. Dunantist organizations align themselves closely with humanitarian principles of neutrality and impartiality (see below) as well as independence, in the tradition of Red Cross movement founder Henri Dunant. Although not all are as purist as the Red Cross/Red Crescent movement members, they see these principles as important to adhere to in order to maintain access to populations in need. They actively shirk alliances with political actors, seeking to carve out a “humanitarian space” where they can operate without the interference of political interests. Examples of Dunantist organizations include Oxfam, Concern Worldwide, and in some cases Médecins Sans Frontières. Wilsonian organizations (named with reference to US President Woodrow Wilson) recognize that humanitarian assistance is inherently political and has the potential to be used to promote positive political outcomes. These organizations are often, though not always, closely tied to governments, with an interest in the politics of the particular humanitarian setting; they may also be receiving financial support from these governments. Often frustrated with the non-interventionist stance of Dunantist organizations, Wilsonian actors reason that humanitarian aid can be used to help influence political relations in positive ways to help bring about a political solution. This, they argue, can help to alleviate suffering in a more comprehensive and possibly more long-lasting way. Dunantists counter this position by arguing that such an interventionist position also can have the potential to do real harm to populations in need and to worsen an already dire humanitarian situation. Examples of Wilsonian organizations include CARE, World Vision, and the International Rescue Committee. As we shall see, in recent years other trends in humanitarianism have been gaining recognition and strength, particularly those faith-based organizations that operate out of solidarity with a particular group or political movement. While motivated by a similar understanding of the potential power of humanitarianism to alter political dynamics, they may be rooted in political objectives that differ markedly from those associated with the Western ideal of Wilsonian humanitarianism. [p. 532]