Post #6
The 1994 100 day killing spree charged by Hutu militants in Rwanda resulted in the death of 800,000 Tutsis and their sympathizers. Where was everyone else? The international community was unfortunately too slow and too uninformed of exactly just what was happening in Rwanda to intervene and mitigate. This tragic example, though extreme, is one of failed humanitarian aid.
Humanitarian aid is defined as “save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain human dignity during and after man-made crises and disasters caused by natural hazards, as well as to prevent and strengthen preparedness for when such situations occur”
Throughout her book, Crisis Caravan, Linda Polman raises concern about Humanitarian Aid. Throughout various scenarios provided, the opposing views of Henri Dunant and Florence Nightingales’ two fundamentally opposing schools of thought remain at the center for debate. Florence Nightingale, a war nurse in the mid-nineteenth century, believed that any humanitarian aid with potential to prolong war should not be provided, whereas Dunant believed that as many people as physically possible should be helped, regardless of who they are or what their affiliation may be.
Because of his view, Dunant will not only go on to create the beginnings of the Red Cross, but his views will also set the standards for humanitarian aid globally at the Geneva Convention by promising neutrality, impartiality and independence from. Even so, Nightingale — a woman Dunant self-proclaims to admire — still vehemently disagrees with his efforts even after Geneva. She writes,
“I need hardly say that I think its views most absurd, just such as would originate in a little state like Geneva, which can never see war” (Polman7).
Polman seems to side with Nightingale more often than not, providing examples of humanitarian aid gone wrong, and the Red Cross’ inability to accept abuse of their aid no matter how many times their rules are broken (Polman 11).
Too often, donors are prepared physically to provide aid, albeit not logistically. Whether or not the motives behind donors’ actions are selfishly or selflessly motivated, it’s too common for uncoordinated efforts to leave the area of concern frazzled and without a clue as to what step should be taken next.
It’s initially quite a foreign and pessimistic feeling to question the motives behind humanitarian aid. While, of course, there are plenty of aid workers with pure and honest intentions ready to help, there are also unfortunately groups with ulterior motives. Polman describes aid organizations as, “…businesses dressed up like Mother Theresa” (177).
Because of the nobility associated with the name, humanitarian aids are seldom called to question by journalists, and often even finance journalists who report on them. Journalists, despite it being in their job description, don’t make the effort to dig deeper into the roots of aid organizations, and remain outwardly naive to what truly goes on.
Paul Spiegel, a current physician and a professor at Johns Hopkins University and former senior official at the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), has used the extensive and enduring global refugee crises as an example to illustrate how “broken” humanitarian aid truly is. He notes that it was a system devised back when issues were much shorter lived, and refugees were seen as temporary. However, displacement will unfortunately persist far longer than initial humanitarians anticipated (displaced populations pictured below), and “Band-Aid Approaches” won’t cut it these days. Instead, money and time should be put into government provided programs to help the displaced while simultaneously shifting power from international entities without a primary focus on humanitarian aid (i.e. UN and WHO).
Similarly, after highlighting all of the problems with humanitarian aid, Polman acknowledges that her views are indeed cynical, but only because humanitarian aid is hardly open to criticism. She isn’t advocating for the cessation of all aid — quite the contrary — she is advocating that the system no longer be exempt from criticisms (172). Prior to this book, it was a bit sobering to read about humanitarian aid in such a way where they’re not held on a pedestal for such noble endeavors. But rather, she addresses the social/political/etc. greed of MONGOS who truly have no qualifications to be “helping” people in need, and some ways that those responsible can start taking action.
To governments: The aid industry needs to be controlled instead of controlling itself. ALNAP and Sphere should act as more than guidelines, but rather bear more weight, so that MONGOs don’t ship frostbite medication to victims of tropical disaster (52).
To journalists: Ask the deeper questions. Learn why aid organizations are there — Why do they want to help? How are they going to help? Do they even know if they are truly helping?
To the public: Combined global expenditure on humanitarian aid is dirt cheap. To us, it is nothing, but that doesn’t excuse us from asking questions, because to warlords, it can be everything. Find out where the money is going. Who will be helped? Innocent victims or warlords? How much can we provide to the wrong side before it’s doing more harm than good?
In order for humanitarian aid to be successful, everyone — yes, everyone — must become and remain interested and informed in current event issues as objectively as possible. Aid cannot be effectively provided when the issue at hand isn’t fully grasped and understood. Leave your high horse at the trough and your prejudices with Jane Austen and start asking the important questions.
