Humanitarian Aid, Conflict and Politics

The Big Truck That Went By: How the World Came to Save Haiti and Left Behind a Disaster is an inside look into the realities behind international aid and intervention. The book answers the question of whether or not international efforts in Haiti really benefited the nation in the long term. The book argues that the international community failed in their efforts to rebuild Haiti due to their mismatched military approaches, failed monetary pledges and how the how billions of dollars were ineffective, having served only short term needs instead of, rebuilding solid foundations and institutions that would serve as the first step toward sustainable development.

Over the recent years the military has had a greater involvement with aid programs, this was most notable from her experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. Militarization of aid politicizes it for something that shouldn't be political. As the author believes humanitarian aid needs to exist in a neutral humanitarian space in order to remain its legitimacy and maintain close ties to the community level. From one example mentioned in Damned Nations, during the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, international aid agencies that worked closely with communities showed greater progress and effectiveness (Nutt, 92). In essence this administered a positive attitude towards westerners, and symbolized progress within hostile nations. Aid that is not militarized allows civilians to feel safe access to services and without the fear in putting themselves or their families at risk (Nutt, 92). In comparison military administered aid has proven to lack the same level of trust because civilians inherently become worried about being targeted as collaborators (Nutt, 92). In addition the militarization of aid proves to bring further danger towards humanitarian workers. “Over the past decade, attacks against aid workers have increased 177 percent, with reports of rape, violence, extortion, abduction, and killings” (Nutt, 94). The author states this was reflected from a misjudgment that involving armed militants into

David Rieff talks about the idea of the “international community which gives both the humanitarian worker and the victims of crisis “false hope” that something will be done (Rieff, 2003). He says that “the moment one taps on to the idea of the international community, it (humanitarianism) falls part like a toy” (Rieff 2003, p.9). The concept of international community, however vague or disastrous it might seem or sound, is also the source of logistics for

Throughout the world, from Africa to the Middle East, some people, when it is in their power to help the citizens of their country, sadly choose not to help, but to harm. Throughout the history of the Middle East, there have been warlords, dictators, and terrorist cells. “Quaddi had taken the city and gave a stark choice to America, aid him or witness a slaughter of innocents” (Humanitarian intervention para. 8). Some argued against sending the military aid and to give in to Quaddi and appease him. However, America could not stand by as innocents were killed, so organized strikes were arranged to save the innocents. Recently, America has given $4208 million to Somali in donations for humanitarian aid. Throughout history, America has been a crucial ally to countries and people in

Although many say humanitarian aid is civilizing war by withdrawing injured on the battlefield and removing them from hostilities. Personally, humanitarian aid does not only help very little during the war, but they prolong the war to get more money and benefits that they claim to need for the sake of the people’s lives. When the Nigerian civil war began in 1967, humanitarian aids were there to help, but they did more harm during the war then they ever did good. The organizations were the reason behind the year and a half extension of this civil war causing “tens of thousands dead, many more

Before relating the R2P to the Darfur Crisis it is important to understand the fundamental tenants of the R2P debate in relation to humanitarian intervention and the repercussions for state sovereignty. The R2P concept can trace its modern origin to the address given by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, to the General Assembly in 1999 putting forward the challenge of preventing another Rwanda.

Today the United States functions in a dangerously unstable world. Proliferation, politically unstable Nations, economic instability and numerous other international issues threaten our nation and its prosperity. Therefore, the United States should protect its own global interests by striving for order and security. The US can do this by maintaining relationships between allied nations, avoid involvement in other nation’s human rights so not to hinder economic growth, and prevent proliferation of dangerous weapons in unstable groups’ hands that can threaten national and international security and stability.

billions of the world’s poorest, where safety is secured only for those with money, and where much of our well-intended aid is lost in the daily chaos of violence. (Boutros V. and Haugen G., 2014).

Humanitarian aide is constantly being picked apart due to their (at times) inability to complete responsibilities. Moreover, basic communication from one organization to another is seen as extraneous. If we were to look upon discrepancies within the international humanitarian system, the lack of uniformity between organizations should be priority. Inconsistencies such as implementing agencies, dependency germane to financial but also political disparity, and little to no accountability upheld on behalf of the aide.

In cases such as Iraq and Afghanistan the United States military assumed a huge role for the distribution of disaster and humanitarian assistance alongside their military objectives. If foreign militaries are carrying out humanitarian aid alongside military objectives, then there is no way that aid can be supplied to whoever is in need in ways that are impartial, neutral and independent. This new system whereby foreign militaries are responsible for supplying aid has created huge security problems for not only the military, but for the people who are receiving aid. Opposing factions to foreign military time and time again in Afghanistan and Iraq have targeted civilians receiving aid to further their own agenda. 7

In the post-Cold War era, the nature of conflicts and events that give rise to the need for humanitarian assistance have significantly evolved. For those caught in the middle of the “war on terror” in the Middle East, or unprecedented violence in Africa, the need to build relationships with the spectator in order to motivate donations is ever present. The relationship between the spectator and the suffering has significantly changed in the past few decades and NGOs and individuals seeking to motivate people to donate must find new ways to motivate this charitable action. In the post-humanitarian era, relationship between the individual donating and the cause has into one that is decoupled from grand emotions and based on moral agency.

Another example of chaos in humanitarian aid is when humanitarian agencies managing complex humanitarian crisis after the war in the Republic of Georgia. Dunn (2012, p. 2) points out this circumstance as adhocracy, ‘a form of power that creates chaos and vulnerability as much as its creates order’. Initially, the case occurred when the state failure in Georgia lead to a state building project by humanitarian agencies. The aim of this project was to make the Internal Displaced Person (IDPs) obtain their life again as citizens. However, in doing so, the agencies conducted apolitical approach for the political problem through cluster system. Here, they convert compassion into bureaucracy and misery into practical problems. They did it by utilising

In continuing to define pure humanitarianism by explaining what it is not, we’ll delve into institutionalization. We can understand contemporary humanitarians by “their commitment to defending their own institutional interest, as well as the degree to which that commitment influences the way they conceive of providing help to people in need.” Humanitarian actors might not be willing to provide aid if it means violating their own interests. This further takes away from the goal of humanitarianism of providing universal aid. Increasingly bureaucratic humanitarian organizations are becoming more subjective in who can be helped and how interests can be elevated as a result.

The 1999 Kosovan War is a controversial event, usually used as a shining example of when humanitarian intervention has worked; unfortunately, when examined, it is unclear whether the international campaign for peace was an actual success or not. NATO justified their involvement by labelling Kosovo a ‘humanitarian war’ after diplomatic negotiations ground to a halt in March 1999 (Wood, 2007). A wide range of sources supported the war in Kosovo, such as David Clark in 2009, with ‘Every member of NATO, every EU country, and most of Yugoslavia's neighbours, supported military action’ (Clark, 2009). Leaders from the US and the UK respectively also stated ‘upholding our values, protecting our interests, and advancing the cause of peace’ (Clinton, 1999), and ‘to avert what would otherwise be a humanitarian disaster in Kosovo’ (Blair, 1999). However, it was not only ambassadors and high-profile politicians that took this stance; scholars and intellectuals were also vocal about their support for the war (Mellon, 2001). This implies that not only did the foreign western powers believe that a

“The basic principle of common morality states that humans have rights not as member of particular community, but as members of human community and there is a common moral world” (Rashid, 2012). Human rights are shared universally but what happens when these human rights are violated? When is the right time to intervene when someone is being harassed in the street? Humanitarian intervention should occur then the targeted group’s violation is violated to an extent where they can no longer defend themselves. Humanitarian intervention may be seen as inefficient and ineffective due to the time it takes to occur, and the bias that comes from the intervention, however humanitarian intervention is necessary to monitor on a state’s treatment towards it’s citizens and it saves the lives of the people in a state.