Throughout the course of Monday's class, the overall discussion pertaining to the history of humanitarianism changed drastically from the rather positive, theoretical idea of humanitarian aid to the difficult reality of modern day aid. Governments and non-governmental organizations used to provide monetary assistance to countries in times of hardship, food to the hungry, and additional help to the sick around the globe. However, the world has changed over time and the original concept of aid has changed due to events like wartime operations, the fragmentation of societies in certain parts of the world, and the rise of conflicts between states and non-state actors. The modern concept of humanitarian aid is challenging to identify due to the many circumstances related to current global affairs, but through the changes and conflicts that occur through time, the overall human response to helping other people around the world continues to resonate.
To start, I'd like to talk about the positive impacts of humanitarian aid systems. It doesn't take a lot of research to identify all the good things that come about from humanitarian assistance. In famine ravaged sections of the globe, people can be provided food, water, and shelter. In disaster zones, aid organizations help by providing drinking water, safe shelters, and even monetary assistance towards the payments required to rebuild and develop. In military-related aid, like in warzones, assistance can be provided to people whose towns were destroyed during bombings or other attacks. Aid is a good thing to people who really need it.
Unfortunately, the humanitarian aid system is limited by some factors, mainly associated with political disagreements in conflict zones. In Afghanistan and Iraq, humanitarian aid organizations needed to work in tandem with military forces to be sure that the presence of aid workers wouldn't fuel action by insurgents. In many cases, insurgents targeted aid workers, which in turn could have escalated tensions in tribal regions. In places like Somalia, where a drastic famine closes in on nearly 12 million people, groups like Al-Shabaab want to control the types of aid that can be provided to people so that they can also spread their extremist rhetoric. Obviously, organizations from developed nations would highly disagree to such requests. Humanitarian aid workers would then be restricted from helping starving people because they would be target number 1 for the terrorist groups that control the famine areas. In order for aid to reach these people, the military would have to assist, and the involvement of the military worries peace keepers and members of the United Nations. It can be said that the efforts to provide aid in conflict areas are often hindered by attacks, military operations, and overall concerns for safety. For more information on the situation in Somalia, an additional link provided here from the Huffington Post outlines specific reasons why Western societies can't help as much as they would like.
In my opinion, one thing to point out is that humanitarian aid organizations have become a monetarily driven machine. Organizations like the Red Cross run advertisements during high profile television shows, and other groups like Amnesty International run full page advertisements in newspapers all in an effort to gain more funding. I agree, these organizations need to do what they can to take in donor funds, but there are some ways that organizations take advantage of the less informed really bothers me. One specific example I can note was from the Fukashima disaster in Japan. The American Red Cross posted advertisements all to raise funds which would contribute to help victims of the earthquake, tsunami, and resulting nuclear disaster. Those funds never made it to Japan. The Japanese Red Cross and the Japanese government already had enough funds to reconstruct roads, buildings, and homes and provide for victims and their families. Japan turned away over 85% of aid organizations and their contributions. Rather, the 14.7% who were able to provide some sort of aid only provided specialized teams to assist special situations throughout the region. And to quote an article by AidWatch, "the Japanese government has made it clear it has the resources it needs for this disaster." I don't like to think that the Red Cross lied to Americans just to take their money and store it away for the next disaster, but it sure seems like it to me. I would've been happier if the Red Cross announced the deception that was incurred from this event and just notify people that their money went into a reserve for later, but I have yet to find an exact statement by their press office. Now does this mean that humanitarian aid organizations are hurting so much that they are willing to take advantage of people who aren't specifically informed, not necessarily, but it does show that they will do what they can to be sure they can be prepared for the next disaster or crisis?
To end on a happier note, I would like to present a palate cleanser. After Monday's class, I felt disappointed that the situation with NGO's and humanitarian aid isn't as happy and simple as it used to be. Aid is a complex system trying to operate in complex political environments. As such, Stephen Colbert once had Emily Pilloton join him on the show to talk about some basic technologies involved with humanitarianism. Making profit should be the last thing on the minds of people trying to change the world for the better, and her notion of "planet, people, then profit" really seems to show a renewed motivation to global aid. I would like to share with you Colbert's short interview with Ms. Pilloton, and hopefully will make you feel more hopeful that NGO's and aid can be more effective than how the systems could be viewed.
“The modern concept of humanitarian aid is challenging to identify due to the many circumstances related to current global affairs”
ReplyDeleteI agree on all fronts with that. While it does have its positive side, in that is helps a lot of people in what it strives to do, I believe this world is changing far too rapidly for the humanitarian aid organizations to keep up.
For example, in looking specifically at areas like Somalia, one would think why more isn’t being done. Hopefully that person would realize that it can’t be done. Sending millions of dollars of food to perhaps be intercepted by those who are doing the oppressing is not what the NGOs want to do.
As for the disagreement/not 100% agreement point, you stated, “I don't like to think that the Red Cross lied to Americans just to take their money and store it away for the next disaster, but it sure seems like it to me.” I think they probably will use some of that funding for whatever comes next. In my article I said, “Who is next?” “Are they prepared?” “What if they aren’t?” The Red Cross will most certainly do what it can to ensure it can be there to provide whatever aid it can to whomever is next on that list of disaster.
The last point I want to bring up is this quote from you, “After Monday's class, I felt disappointed that the situation with NGO's and humanitarian aid isn't as happy and simple as it used to be. Aid is a complex system trying to operate in complex political environments.” I think this is spot on. Aid will continue to become more complex as more and more people enter this world. See my article as to why I believe that. The political systems of the world I did not consider when making that opinionated decision, but will definitely only make matters worse.
I liked your article; it was very informative.
Have fun at the game tomorrow!
-Pat
I agree with a lot of what you said and it really made me think in a way I was not before. There needs to be a mandate of some sort I believe that if a Humanitarian organization deems it necessary to go into a country and has a legitimate reason to the UN should pass a resolution that there needs to be a mandatory military presence from all countries able to provide one in order to protect these people who are just trying to help in even the most destabilized of regions.
ReplyDeleteI had no idea about the ads that the Red Cross had put out and the fact that Japan did not really want their help. This is a point that I really like that you made that most Humanitarian organizations are monetarily driven and I feel that may be the best way to put it. I put in my own post that it was political but I feel I did not connect politics and money in a cohesive way because at times I feel they are one in the same. The most funding that is available is from governments and not individuals or companies themselves which is why it appears that Humanitarian organizations are becoming more political and polarized. Some NGO's are political by their nature but it is becoming harder and harder for the Red Cross to get money and support which I believe or would like to believe they run ad campaigns like the one for Japan while not entirely true I would hope the money will be put to good use somewhere down the line.
Again great post very informative and gave me another way to look at the situation.