Posted by Humanitarian Action or Alibi: Inequality Amidst Humanitarian Efforts
Just as some natural disasters can be viewed as manufactured economic disasters, can the response to certain humanitarian emergencies caused by armed conflicts perpetuate or even exacerbate the issues they aim to address? Are humanitarian actions merely temporary solutions to much larger and more complex problems? Do powerful states use humanitarian efforts as a ‘humanitarian alibi’ to avoid addressing the political dynamics that create suffering in the first place (Barnett & Weiss, 2008, p. 114)
Rony Brauman, a prominent figure in the field of humanitarian aid, and Dolores Martin-Moruno in Making Humanitarian Crises, argue that “humanitarian crises have no ontological status. They are historically contingent constructions produced by governments, international organisations, and journalists, which have dissimulated the political dimensions of suffering and violence under a generic denomination…” (Brauman 2001, 2009).
These complex questions invite us to delve deeper into the humanitarian sector, provoking further thought and discussion.
Double Standards and Neutrality Blinds
Double standards becomes evident when donors criticize certain governments for their human rights violations while simultaneously funding other governments with comparable records. Dirk-Jan Koch highlights this contradiction in in his book Foreign Aid and Its Unintended Consequences. This inconsistency extends to the dual agendas of donors. For instance, Western governments and companies publicize their vaccine donations and humanitarian aid efforts, yet they simultaneously block patent reform for vaccines and resists arms export treaties designed to prevent humanitarian crises (Koch, 2024, p. 28).
The question arises: by remaining silent, do humanitarian practitioners inadvertently support these double standards and contribute to prolonged conflicts? Koch contends that ‘neutrality blinds’ and hinders open dialogue. Humanitarian aid workers serve as the international community’s antennas, if they do not include their field-level operations into political discussions, policymakers may further unaware of the reality (Koch, 2024, p. 50). This issue represents just a fraction of the broader complexities involved and of course does not absolve governments of their responsibilities.
Humanitarian Aid as a Political Tool
An example of this emerges with the European Union, one in which has been a primary donor to the Palestinian Authority, investing a total of €750 million in the Palestinian Authority, Palestinian government, and civil society between 2007 and 2022. Additionally, European Union member states contributed around €1.83 billion from 2007 to 2021.
Comparing the situation in Palestine, which heavily relies on donor assistance and has endured decades of economic hardship due to movement and access restrictions, to that of Israel—a prosperous state with one of the world’s most advanced militaries—highlights the existing imbalance. This scenario underscores how foreign aid can inadvertently fuel “persistent civil wars, induced politicization of the economy, and distorted the rules of the game” (Lorenzini, p.161).
“Humanitarianism is imagined as efforts to address the aftermath of crises, temporarily, and, as Dixon (2019) argues, endless wars of altruism may continue under the banner of humanitarian intervention” (Roth, Purkayastha, & Denskus, 2024, p.95).
The impact of conflict in these regions and globally has exacerbated poverty and contributed to the rise in mass migration. Lorenzini describes how the European Union employs aid “as a reward to African and Middle Eastern countries who cooperate in migration management,” particularly for countries in the Mediterranean. The aim is to control people’s movements from these countries to encourage potential migrants to remain in their home countries, revitalizing the 1940s goal of “help them to help themselves” (Lorenzini, 2019, p.176). This approach is based on “peace and development and to reduce migration – a phenomenon the European public increasingly perceived as a colossal security threat for European welfare and identity” (Lorenzini, 2019, p.177). This concern is reflective of the global trend in which “108.4 million people worldwide were forcibly displaced as a result of persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations, and events seriously disturbing public order” (UNHCR, 2023).
A way forward
This situation presents an opportunity for course correction. Donors and aid agencies should frequently ask: are we indirectly contributing to conflict by supporting particular partners or policies? Conflict sensitivity is an approach to ensure that interventions do not unintentionally contribute to conflict but strengthen opportunities for peace and inclusion (Canadian Agency for International Development, Conflict Sensitivity Tip Sheet, September 2021).
For instance, the UK Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (DFID) was the first donor to require that all civil servants developing aid programs conduct conflict scans. Stating ‘for all interventions in fragile and conflict-affected countries, you should set out how intervening will make an important contribution to addressing conflict and/or fragility, and how doing harm will be avoided.’ Following DFID’s, many donors adopted similar requirements, and now all civil servants working on EU interventions in fragile states must adhere to this standard. (Koch, 2024).
It is crucial to recognize that, just as climate change results from our global economic system, the unjust social equilibrium and tolerance for human rights violations is a conscious societal choice that persists. The interplay between humanitarian aid and socio-political tools is of paramount importance in the realm of Communication for Development. This perspective allows for a critical examination of the existing status quo, fostering a deeper comprehension of the intricate political dynamics and power structures that influence both media narratives and political ideologies. Such insights are essential for promoting meaningful actions in conflict-prone areas, reducing economic disparities, and fostering peace in some of the world’s most politically unstable regions.
REFERENCES
Edgar, B. L., Gorin, V., & Martin-Moruno, D. (Eds.). (2023). Making a Humanitarian Crises: Emotions and Images in History. Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
European Commission. (2022). EU Trade Relationships with Country and Region – Palestine. Trade Policy. https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/palestine_en
Koch, D.-J. (2024). Foreign Aid and Its Unintended Consequences. Routledge.
Lorenzini, S. (2019). Global Development: A Cold War History. Princeton University Press.
Roth, S., Purkayastha, B., & Denskus, T. (Eds.). (2024). Handbook on Humanitarianism and Inequality. Edward Elgar Publishing.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2023, June). Global Trends. UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends