Sign in or 
Location: AMSA Global Health Scholars '08-'09 Discussion Forum
Discussion: Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this|
ljanneck |
|
sezaeh |
1. RE: Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Feb 13 2009, 9:39 AM EST
Nicolas de Torrente makes several points concerning the importance of maintaining “impartiality, neutrality, and independence” in humanitarian action. He argues when humanitarian aid is used to promote peace and development, there can be many adverse consequences for aid including the concept of making aid “conditional on moral or political choices,” the denial of aid to current populations in need in an effort to achieve future benefits, and selectivity regarding who will receive aid due to greater political goals. While I agree with Torrente’s concerns regarding the increasing impartiality of humanitarian aid, I do not believe that linking relief to development is necessarily the cause of these issues. For the past fifteen years, humanitarian actors have been concerned with the potential of linking relief to development in what was termed the “relief to development continuum.” Today, the concept of a “continuum” is outdated – the transition between relief and development isn’t necessarily linear and can proceed at the same time, with relief and development influencing one another. While relief and development are often perceived to be two entirely distinct concepts, I believe there is a false dichotomy between the two. As Hugo Slim (2000) argues, through using a rights based approach, we realize that relief and development have the same ultimate purpose: to uphold human dignity for the vulnerable, save lives for the short and long term, and ensure the equality of all human beings. Do you find this valuable? |
|
sezaeh |
2. RE: Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Feb 13 2009, 9:39 AM EST
I believe it is critical to consider how relief efforts will impact longer term development. Humanitarian actors must learn to coordinate efforts so that when development efforts fully take over, progress achieved during the relief response can be continued. Donors must be educated on the instability of post-conflict countries and encouraged to not only dedicate funds to the more visible immediate humanitarian relief, but to also consider the developmental factors which must occur to ensure a country does not slip back into conflict. Thus, there would be no “denial of immediate assistance in the interest of reaping future benefits,” as Torrente describes, but rather a coordinated effort between relief and development groups to ensure immediate and future progress can occur. Do you find this valuable? |
MegSchultz |
3. RE: Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Feb 13 2009, 10:07 PM EST
This was a difficult article to read in that, while I wholeheartedly agreed with many of de Torrente's points, I simultaneously felt a nagging discord with his overall argument. "It is critical that humanitarian organizations first and foremost focus on their responsibility to provide direct assistance to people in immediate need, wherever and whoever they may be," he writes. He goes on to argue against aid conditionality and selectivity, and humanitarian organizations' collaboration with military forces. This is, all in all a very pretty idea. But is it realistic? Our last reading, by Gourevitch, exposed the hypocrisy of humanitarian aid organizations supplying food, shelter and healthcare to genocidaires living in refugee camps while the killings raged on - in essence, all these "humanitarians" were doing was strengthening and stabilizing the murderous military forces. Will we, as future humanitarian doctors, truly be able to cast aside all bias and judgment to "provide direct assistance to people in need, wherever and whoever they may be"? And if these "people in need" have machine guns and threaten us, and speak of their past and future murders, will we be able to continue providing that assistance? If so, is it noble or is it completely contrary to the overall cause of health and justice? The other issue I thought of while reading this article was concerning the complete impartiality for which de Torrente advocates. I agree that associating with politico-military efforts can jeopardize an aid organization's credibility and impact. But I also wonder, in the event of a relief worker's abduction or worse, which entity would be able to help OTHER THAN a politico-military force. Unfortunately, incredibly, horrible things happen in wars, and that includes injuries and deaths of relief workers. So who is there to support and protect those relief workers if not a military? 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
Matias.Iberico |
4. RE: Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Feb 17 2009, 3:09 PM EST
Humanitarianism Sacrificed ReflectionIn Humanitarianism Sacrificed: Integration's False Promise Nicolas de Torrenté argues against the recently popular 'new humanitarianism.' He specifically refers to the coherence model whereby humanitarian organizations integrate and necessarily align themselves with certain international actors and strive not just to provide humanitarian relief but also to work towards "comprehensive, durable and just resolution of conflict." This new or 'politicized humanitarianism' has led to indiscriminate attacks against aid workers as agents of the enemy which is often a western state. Furthermore, as Mr. Torrenté contends, the coherence model has resulted in a culture of discrimination where humanitarian aid is no longer parceled out impartially but only to beneficiaries who are perceived to contribute to "presumably higher goals of peace and development." These issues are of great interest to me. They are things that I have been considering for some time and that were brought into acute focus after reading our book assignment (We Wish to Inform You . . .). The failure of the international community to act in the face of atrocity and genocide coupled with often seeming impotence of the Geneva Conventions and their defenders makes it clear to me that some revision of the current model is needed. One only needs to look at the Rwanda memorial against the backdrop of the "Never Again" buttons of the staff at the Holocaust Museum to see that this is true. Integration may indeed have been a false promise as Mr. Torrenté boldly states, but perhaps the soul of the idea (i.e. change to the current paradigm) bears a second look. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Matias.Iberico |
5. RE: Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Feb 17 2009, 3:10 PM EST
One example that stands fresh in my memory, for obvious reasons, is the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and the continued conflict in the Congo. Phillip Gourevitch was one of the first to state that the impartiality-cum-blindness of the aid workers in the refugee camps was a great contributer to atrocities being committed then and arguably paved part of the way to Africa's first world war. Eventually, as Mr. Torrenté acknowledges, the camps were shut down, but he ignores the blatant illegality of the camps, in terms of their proximity to the the Rwandan border, and the fact that humanitarian space was contracted due to an exalted impartiality on the behalf of aid workers. It is precisely this susceptibility to blindness that troubles me about the humanitarian imperative or, if you will the "old humanitarianism."
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Matias.Iberico |
6. RE: Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Feb 17 2009, 3:10 PM EST
On the whole I agree that the coherence model is inherently flawed. It aligns supposedly altruistic organizations that are fighting for the betterment of humanity with states that have political agendas. When the two stated goals agree, integration opens paths where there were none and provides international aid workers with much needed protection. When the interests of the state and the humanitarian body don't agree however, there is either blockade or counterproductive action. In order to fight this the international humanitarian community must work more independently and cohesively. Additionally conditionality should not exist in regards to civilians, but humanitarians must discriminate between those who add to the conflict directly and those who do not. What is important above all is for humanitarianism not to become a vehicle for tyranny or atrocity. In order to stay true to the ideals of humanitarianism this is an imperative! I also contend that the UN must have a much stronger mandate and a balance of power that is not quite so United States/Western world dominated in order to be able to back up humanitarian missions and to fight on the side of "comprehensive, durable, and just resolution of conflict" so that humanitarian organizations can do what they are meant to do.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Matias.Iberico |
7. A specific mini reflection on ethics
Feb 17 2009, 3:23 PM EST
On the first page of his article Mr. Torrenté states that "sacrificing or sidelining the humanitarian imperative . . . based on assessed needs for future unproven benefits is not only ethically untenable-it is also unnecessary." He goes on to say on page seven that there is no ethical justification for holding the greater good above "the immediate right of victims to receive lifesaving assistance." Kant would be proud, but I feel that this sentiment is flawed. The ethics of utilitarianism have a definite role in humanitarianism. On the surface this is evidenced in the basic principle of limited resources and the need to make tough choices. More importantly, as in Rwanda, sometimes treating impartiality as a categorical imperative can get us into a bit of trouble.
Do you find this valuable?
|
kmckeegan |
8. Humanitarianism sacrificed
Feb 18 2009, 12:27 PM EST
First of all: great choice. An analysis of the trend to merge humanitarian aid with governmental action is really timely and insightful and de Torrente is a good write. I found myself nodding and agreeing with Torrente multiple times while reading this article. However, I also felt Meg’s discomfort with the idea that humanitarian intervention can be fully divorced from military and political action. The idea of feeding and housing genocidaires, as happened in Rwanda, goes against the deepest goals of those undertaking the humanitarian effort. de Torrente acknowledges this: “In exceptional circumstances, humanitarian space shrinks to the extreme: the negative can outweigh the positive and abstention becomes the best option. This occurred when the genocidal authorities’ total control of the Rwandan refugee camps in Zaire dictated that aid served to strengthen their grip over the pop- ulation more than alleviate its suffering.” But I also wonder whether part of my (our?) discomfort is that the misdirection of aid makes us feel that we are being taken advantage of. No one likes to be used, and the idea of abetting murderers is particularly galling for those of us who want to heal. Although hidden in technical language, I think the discussion of “aid diversion” and “fueling the conflict” masks a deeply personal unwillingness to be someone’s fool. Do you find this valuable? |
|
kmckeegan |
9. RE: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Feb 18 2009, 12:29 PM EST
I don’t think that this aversion to being used is wrong but I do wonder if our emotions become a trap when allocating humanitarian aid. I think we must accept that providing basic aid will almost always entail some collateral losses to misdirection. Humanitarians must set aside their pride and learn to stomach some unpalatable side effects. If the humanitarian community cannot accept this, the fear of being used will become a convenient screen behind which aid organizations and governments can exercise conditionality and selectivity in their reponses. The use of aid as a political tool does far more harm to the humanitarian cause than occasionally being taken advantage of. Unfortunately, weighing the benefit of aid to the general population against its contribution to criminals is one that has to happen on a case-by-case basis. MSF seems to do a great job of making this decision. I wonder if we know more about how they do so and whether the humanitarian community can adopt some sort of basic principle/guidelines to follow in these situations? Do you find this valuable? |
carp_ediem |
10. RE: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Feb 18 2009, 8:54 PM EST
I read de Torrente's article with a micro-war waging inside my head (it was a rare, tidy "no-refugee" conflict, thankfully).SIDE A: Something deep within me is so excited to hear an arguement for maintaining distance between humanitarian aid organizations and politico-military action. I am, regretfully, not the founder of an NGO and have no practical expereince to back up my opinions. Nonetheless, I am fascinated by the ideal of "political virginity." I do not, however, accept the insinuation that ideals are necessarily naive or useless. Humanitarian aid by definition operates in the arena of catastrophe and travesty. The players and referees are comprised of politicians, militants, and the full range of human depravity. I posit, despite this stark reality, that humanitarian organizations should carry unsullied ideals into the fray and there work diligently, to the best of their imperfect ability, to uphold virgin ideals. SIDE B: I have a deep concern, sparked by Gourevitch's book, about people taking advantage of humanitarian organizations. The genocidaires of Rwanda abused the altruism of numerous organizations (ironically protecting inhumanity). My angry, reflexive response to this situation is to withdraw aid and "teach them a lesson." I know, in truth, that it is not the genocidaires who will really hurt with that response. I struggle to reconcile these two sides within my own mind. I have to concluded that I would sacrifice military protection (safety) and logistical bonuses (politcal) for purity of motive and flexibility. I believe deeply in helping people at a personal cost. As much as possible, all aid organizations should be educated about scams so they can make wise choices regarding the dispensation of aid. Nonewithstanding, the place of aid organizations will always be in the middle of danger, doing borderline (if not downright) foolish things because people are invaluable to them. Do you find this valuable? |
Racheljean16 |
11. RE: Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Feb 20 2009, 9:50 AM EST
This article reminds me of a news story I recently heard on NPR about one of the leading human rights activists in Iran being attacked and harassed because of assumption that her activities were tied to the West. Why does “humanitarian work” trigger associations with the west? For so long the west has used humanitarian aid as a political tool, from the creation of the Peace Corps to combat anti-Americanism during the Cold War, to decisions of how much aid to provide based on political ideology of a country.In one way or another, “humanitarian work” connotes something anti-government maybe because it publicly denounces the government for some sort of failure or lack. Obviously, it’s much more offensive when the judgment comes from the outside, and perhaps it is easier to believe that all negative judgment is only from the outside perspective--a perspective that doesn’t really know what’s going on. De Torrente says that, “Humanitarian actors must always be in a position to challenge governments to meet their principle responsibilities—both with regard to humanitarian action itself and with regard to the political nature of conflict and crisis.” But who decides what a governments’ responsibilities are? In a democratic society it is the people who constitute the country, however, if “humanitarians” are seen as strictly outsiders with ulterior motives, it is difficult for a government to accept that any such challenges or responsibilities have to do with their own people. Humanitarian organizations that do come from the outside attempt to remain independent or neutral from their home governments, however, they will still be seen as foreigners. De Torrente goes on to write that, “What is in fact at stake for humanitarian organizations is to maximize the benefits of aid delivery for the affected population while minimizing its unavoidable negative side effects, such as cooptation and diversion by armed groups.” Do you find this valuable? |
|
Racheljean16 |
12. RE: Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Feb 20 2009, 9:51 AM EST
With situations like Iran, I’m not sure how this is possible, as even humanitarian work coming from within carries negative side effects. In that respect, I agree with de Torrente that integration is a “false promise,” but I’m not sure that his suggested alternatives are much better…
Do you find this valuable?
|
jglenn83 |
13. RE: Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Feb 26 2009, 2:08 PM EST
| Post edited: Feb 26 2009, 2:10 PM EST
I thought this article by Torrente was frustrating to read because there really is no easy answer. He’s right when he says it is idealistic to expect humanitarian aid to work completely independent of political purpose in some venues and operate with politics in another. How will we be able to differentiate between organizations who are operating politically or purely humanitarian based? This problem is intertwined with the issues of neutrality that we’ve already discussed and that Torrente does touch upon. It becomes dangerous for all aid organizations if some are political. He already mentions aid workers that have been killed because of this. It’s hard for humanitarian organizations to resist the temptation to work with political purpose because the Western world is so domineering and financially controlling that their influence is hard to avoid. Unfortunately today “money is king” and there is a slippery slope when donors to aid organizations have their own political agendas.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
jglenn83 |
14. RE: Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Feb 26 2009, 2:09 PM EST
The danger in only sending humanitarian aid when politically savvy (i.e. sanctioned aid) is that you run the risk of neglecting certain populations. I would worry that if a particular situation is not politically important enough to get involved in then the aid wouldn’t either. It’s almost like you are putting a price on people’s lives. In crisis who are we to say who is most deserving of aid? He says “a second kind of triage is the denial of immediate assistance in the interest of reaping future benefits.” It’s just seems ridiculous that we would only help people if it benefitted us. That’s not what humanitarian aid means to me.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
jglenn83 |
15. RE: Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Feb 26 2009, 2:09 PM EST
I think one particular point he makes in this article is very important: first send assistance and then rebuild politically. Humanitarian aid has a role in that it can alleviate suffering immediately in a crisis whereas reconstruction and development takes time. The ability to access those in need without political context is so important. Humanitarian aid has the opportunity to stabilize a population in crisis and pave the way for political action, not necessarily be a part of it. I’m not sure that Torrente every really figured out the answer for the future but I agree that we need to allocate aid based on individual cases, safety, and avoiding negative impact, but not for political benefit.
Do you find this valuable?
|
Paul.Johnson |
16. more on Humanitarianism sacrificed
Feb 27 2009, 7:40 AM EST
Well, I've been thinking about this article for a little while now, and basically the same thoughts that have been posted here have been running through my mind as well. So, I would like to share an interesting story with you about humanitarian programs becoming political forces. Hopefully you aren't too tired of hearing my post about Mozambique, but I did spend three years there, so it's the place I know the best (and it's relevant because they referenced it in the article). Mozambique actually had very little/no political involvement from the US- luckily, although we did consider sending weapons to the rebels. There was very substantial contributions from humanitarian organizations from the US and Europe. A history of the Mozambican civil war, called 'The Harrowing of Mozambique', the author talks quite a bit about how the aid organizations divided the country up and ran it like 'a personal fiefdom'. There was even a joke among aid workers that instead of being called 'The People's Republic of Mozambique' it should be 'The Aid Organization's Republic...'. This was during the late 80's and 90's. Because the aid organizations controlled the wealth and had the technical knowledge, they controlled many of the functions of government- what roads to pave, where to dig wells, which towns got electricity, etc. They filled a power vacuum, but in doing so stepped far outside of their bounds as humanitarian workers. From what I have seen to this day, there is a struggle between NGOs and the Mozambican government, each trying to influence the other. So, it's interesting to see that even in situations where NGOs could work independently of political purposes, they tend not to.
Do you find this valuable?
|
Merrian |
17. RE: Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Mar 7 2009, 7:05 PM EST
First the response to de Torrentes article by a man named Paul O'brien of CARE international, is here http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss17/obrien.pdfSo pardon my delay. OB-Gyne took over my life. I echo some of the sentiments mentioned by other scholars. I did agree with the points that deTorrente mentions but am not entirely comfortable with the way his theory relates to reality. In this way I think O'Brien does an excellent job of relaying what I think are realistic views of the ways that humanitarianism intersects with politicism. O'Brien argues that of course humanitarianism is political, the idea of providing resources and protection to non-combatant is a political ideology. He states the point is to emphasize that the politics of the humanitarian organization are the those politics of protecting the poor and innocent. One thing I wholeheartedly agree with de Torrente on is the responsibilities of the humanitarian community with respect to their organizations. Since NGO's essentially have no real body that holds them accountable. He states that aid organizations are responsible for maintaining the humanitarian space which includes 1. independently assessing needs, 2. deployment of aid according to needs alone 3. close monitoring of the delivery of assistance. These ensure that governmental bodies and the like won't need to be involved in maintaining assistance programs that are not harmful. I agree that the "higher" goals of peace, security, and development can not be used to co-opt emergency assistance. If humanitarian organizations maintain humanitarian space they are less likely to hinder those higher goals, but will also provide for people's needs. He also adds that humanitarians should : 1. challenge governments to restrain wartime behavior, 2. hold belligerents to account, 3. mobilize resources for needs based assistance. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Merrian |
18. RE: Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Mar 7 2009, 7:07 PM EST
These is where humanitarian organizations can be political without being politically aligned. To challenge a governments behavior and uphold the Geneva Conventions etc these organizations are taking political stands. I agree that if an organization is aligned with one government or the other they will be more inclined to restrain their critical speech. But I feel that de Torrente was less than clear in his definition of 'integration' and politicisation. The problem is the outcomes that de torrente talk about are the same. If an aid group speaks against Mugabe in Zimbabwe for example, they will be speaking freely of any government and probably basing their indictments on witnessed atrocities. Mugabe will still oust that group and they may even be threatened for their highlights of the problem. de Torrentes solutions is to emphasize the distance between a government and the aid group as to reduce the number of sporadic attacks on aid workers. But how can humanitarians challenge government's to restrain and hold belligerents to account without again putting themselves into political danger?Overall I think that 'neutral' is a word that doesn't have real value. We are are influenced by something. I personally think that is ok. One major difference I noticed between de Torrente and O'Brien was that one works for an emergency health aid organization (deTorrente with MSF), and O'brien works for a longer term development agency (CARE). I think that plays are role in objectivity about such things as well. Sometimes aid now can interfere with development later. I feel like de Torrente perceives humanitarian aid as one dimensional; as an emergency response to an emergency situation. I happen to think development assistance is equally humanitarian and a "higher goal" that should always be considered in any NGO's analysis of the impact of their actions. Do you find this valuable? |
|
kgand001 |
19. RE: Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Mar 10 2009, 11:27 AM EDT
Through a series of well thought out arguments de Torrente points a bold finger at the pink elephant that stands between humanitarianism in ideals and in action. This topic has been a recurrent theme throughout our readings, but this article lays bare the heart of controversy. I think de Torrente did an elegant job of dissecting the tough issues that humanitarian organizations are faced with when attempting to aid those who are suffering in the wake of political turmoil. I especially appreciated his careful distinction between withholding aid for political reasons versus abstention due to negative effects. One the other hand, I don’t think cases in which negotiating with hostile political elements is necessary to bring aid to captive populations was adequately addressed in this article.Making humanitarian aid conditional upon conflict resolution may see like a win, win situation in the political realm. Governments can help their people, while the opposing parties are set on a course to peace. However, de Torrente points out that any kind of political contingency on humanitarian aid is counterproductive to its goals, which are first and foremost to help those vulnerable populations who are suffering at the hands of politics at its worst. In additions to this, the innocents who are in need of aid are put at greater risk when aid is withheld for any political reasons. However there are cases in which the involvement of aid organizations puts vulnerable peoples in further danger. I am very glad that de Torrente took care to make this distinction in the article, because it may be a talking point for those who say politics and aid cannot be untangled. In situations like the one detailed in Gourevitch’s book in which refugee camps constructed by humanitarian organizations were militarized, and those who were meant to be helped were tortured instead, withholding humanitarian aid would actually be the better option. Do you find this valuable? |
