Sign in or 
Location: AMSA Global Health Scholars '08-'09 Discussion Forum
Discussion: Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this|
kgand001 |
20. RE: Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Mar 10 2009, 11:27 AM EDT
However this decision has nothing to do with triage. It is simply a cost benefit analysis of the course of action to be taken by a humanitarian organization.On the other hand, I think de Torrente didn’t adequately address how humanitarian organization should proceed in delivering aid to highly militarized conflict zones. Humanitarian aid workers are often put at risk when delivering aid, however minimizing the risk and preventing casualties should be a top priority when arranging missions. This may require the protection and assistance of hostile governments. How should humanitarian organizations proceed if they are forced to deal with these governments to ensure safe passage and delivery of aid? De Torrente refers to what he calls “humanitarian space” which entails freedom for the humanitarian organization to decide how, when, and where aid should be delivered. However, in cases in which this space is extremely small and abstention would do more harm than good, it may be worth developing a set of guidelines for organizations to follow to help them worth with governments to deliver aid. Do you find this valuable? |
Zhenya.Krapivinsky |
21. RE: Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Mar 15 2009, 6:55 PM EDT
The basic argument to separate “humanitarian aid” and military operations holds merit in many respects. Indeed when political tactics meddle with humanitarian action, the perception that to receive aid is a human right not a sociopolitical right gets blurred. And of course, this can jeopardize the geopolitical immunity of NGOs & at times the safety of aid workers. But I think it is the more ephemeral nuance that threatens the idealism of humanitarian work that is of utter most importance to those who spend time arguing this issue. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth. In fact the very foundation of all humanitarian work – the principles put forth by Henry Dunont in the manifesto of the International Red Cross and later in the Geneva Convention – demands that all victims of war, irrespective of their political stance, receive aid that is to be provided by the people of the world. The situation, however, has gotten a bit more complicated since the late 1800s. The original International Red Cross was composed of five people, and resultantly the wounded they served likely did not exceed 100 persons and consisted mainly of free infirmary beds and complimentary limb amputations. The establishment of the IRC was a noble and righteous movement and the principles put forth by the 5 founding members have since rightfully become truisms. However, the movement has grown immensely since their time and humanitarian aid no longer encompasses solely civilians helping the wounded at times of war, but now involves massive undertakings such as mass food distribution, comprehensive healthcare provision, establishment of primary schooling, rebuilding of houses, violence reduction campaigns, etc. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Zhenya.Krapivinsky |
22. RE: Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Mar 15 2009, 6:56 PM EDT
The scale of contemporary emergencies, and the breadth of the humanitarian response highlights the need for many NGOs to work in consortia with well equipped military units in order to respond effectively. A handful of knowledgeable and dedicated Medicine de Sans France volunteers simply do not have the logistic capacity to rebuild roads and de – mine farming land. As such, severing all NGO – military cooperation may not be of benefit to the aid process. In addition, the whole argument against civilian-military humanitarian cooperation sounds a bit like a turf war. Many militaries today, including the EU and the US, have started to change their military doctrines. Traditional force and intimidation have started to be replaced by a concept of establishing security. The White Papers, put out by the US Security Council, now states that their primary strategy to combat terrorism will be to ensure economic well being in improvised, war-torn areas that breed fanaticism. Now, because these statements are put forth by the government, who are classically viewed with skepticism by peace loving NGOs, it is intuitive to snub it. But is the government being invested in the economic wellbeing of the underdeveloped world in conflict really a bad thing? Whatever the reasons, the military and NGOs, have common reasons for providing humanitarian aid - peace and stability. Is there a way to use this common goal for a greater good? Do you find this valuable? |
|
Zhenya.Krapivinsky |
23. RE: Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Mar 15 2009, 6:56 PM EDT
Now, despite the common end points of military and humanitarian operations, their motives are of course different. And this is the stem of the conflict. Humanitarian action is governed by the principles of impartiality and non partisanship, and therefore must be conducted independently of political and military objectives and considerations. Military action is governed by politics. But is there a way to reconcile these differences? I understand the apprehension and inherent mistrust with the UN proposed ‘integrated approach’; but is there no way to tweak it to work? Can a central agency come up with a frame work to divide the labor of military and humanitarian operations so that the humanitarian principles remain uncompromised while utilizing the skills and capabilities of the military? I suppose that is the central question and unfortunately I have not been able to reconcile a coherent solution to the dilemma.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
DHaisch |
24. Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Mar 22 2009, 9:54 AM EDT
Wow--I'm not sure how I missed posting for this! Sorry! Torrente’s critique of the coherence agenda makes a good case for the separation of humanitarian aid and political/government involvement, and I believe that many of his points are absolutely correct. Implicit in this argument is the understanding that the agendas of these groups are so different that their integration is often impossible without sacrificing their respective ideals and goals. I wonder if this separation should be so dramatic. Should we be content to accept governments that are blind to the immediate health concerns or human rights violations that they believe will give way to peace, security, and development? And if governments were acting as Torrentes argues they should—promoting respect of international humanitarian law, mobilizing resources for meaningful and consistent assistance, insisting on access to victims, safety of aid workers, etc.—would there be this same need for such a separation? Or would a different flavor of coherence agenda be appropriate under these circumstances? Do you find this valuable? |
|
DHaisch |
25. Fourth reading: Humanitarianism sacrificed
Mar 22 2009, 9:55 AM EDT
As for the humanitarian side of it, Torrente makes the point that, “Political, socioeconomic, and other conditions define a framework of possibilities [for humanitarian action], and political, socioeconomic, and other consequences of taking action must be taken into account….” This point brings me back to Gourevitch’s book, and I wonder to what extent these consequences can truly be anticipated by outside groups coming into a foreign situation. He goes on to point out that “the delivery of humanitarian aid in wartime conveys values of humanity and fraternity that are communicated to all parties in a conflict and hence play a key role in the construction of a meaningful peace.” Though I agree with this hope, I wonder if the changing face of conflicts makes this valid. With increasing resentment of Western values in some conflict areas, I doubt that our involvement would necessarily be understood as promoting “humanity and fraternity.” Rather, it might be understood more frequently as propaganda or simply not be seen as enough to make up for past evils. Finally, I appreciated his call for a new class of aid agencies that associate themselves with governments and the “international agenda” to articulate the principles—since they cannot claim neutrality and independence—that guide their “politicized humanitarianism.” These agencies are currently walking the line, using principles from each side as they are convenient; however, this trend blurs distinctions between government and humanitarian that are difficult to re-establish and could erode trust in the neutrality of humanitarian organizations that are truly neutral. Do you find this valuable? |
