Being/Becoming Global Citizen

Humanitarian response report

Prompt
For this assignment you are to choose one of the humanitarian crises around the globe and report how the humanitarian sector is responding to the needs of the affected communities. To the extent possible try to go beyond mere description of the crisis and transition to analysis using some of the insights you have learned from our texts and class discussions.  Your humanitarian response report should address at least the following questions:

• What is the history of the situation?  
• What precipitated the crisis?
• What is the current state of this humanitarian crisis?
• How can you describe the need in the affected communities and the response in numbers?
• What governments are involved?
• How has the US press/media covered this story?  How has the global press covered the story?
• What major INGO’s are responding?
• What CBOs, local religious groups, and governments are responding?
• How are major needs identified and responses coordinated?
• How are safety issues managed at refugee camps and/or distribution points, clinics, and other venues where the affected community interact with aid workers, especially regarding proactive policies and procedures dealing with SEA/GBV?
• To what degree are needs being met?
• Who makes up the staff implementing the humanitarian response?

Rubric:

• Due by class meeting time, Monday, February 25.
• Late posts will be downgraded at least one letter grade.
• Comments to at least three colleague’s posts by February 26th by 10:00PM EST.
• At least four citations: at least one from text and/or other assigned reading, at least two from outside academic sources, and one citation of class lecture/discussion.  Note:  you are to read/watch/listen to all of the material in the hyperlinks in the parent post above; your contact with the material should be apparent in your post.  Reference class lecture/discussion is this form (SOC371:3-27) i.e., course number and date.
• List references at the bottom of the page (MLA format).
• At least one photo and/or video link appropriate to and enhancing the content of your post.
• Minimum 0f 700 words (excluding references).
• Grade will be based on quality and quantity of response to the post prompt including adherence to the above benchmarks.
• Keep in mind that you are writing for a broad audience that is educated and interested in this topic; infuse your post with the sociology you are learning/have learned in a non-jargonistic manner

As a shorthand for the longer, more detailed grading rubric above this SOC summary may be useful.

• S = demonstration of understanding and application of sociological concepts, theories, etc. germane to the topic, especially those taking about in the text and in class
• O = organization and structure overall; flow of ideas, appropriate and contextualized use of images and videos, proper documentation of sources
• C = analytical creativity; going beyond obvious restatement or simple examples and pushing boundaries of thought and perspective; finding outside academic sources beyond the obvious

Please check Assignments/Assignment 4 before you Publish.

Condemned to Repeat by Fiona Terry

Background on the Author

• Fiona Terry was the Head Research Director of the French section of Doctors Without Borders when it withdrew from the Rwandan refugee camps in Zaire.
  • She says they withdrew after discovering that the aid intended for refugees actually ended up strengthening those responsible for the genocide.
  • In the book, she includes  documents from the former Rwandan army and government that were found in the refugee camps after they were attacked in late 1996. The documents illustrate how combatants manipulated humanitarian action to their benefit.
• Fiona Terry has spent most of the last 20 years involved in humanitarian operations in different parts of the world, including northern Iraq, Somalia, Liberia, Sudan, North Korea, Sierra Leone and Angola, before spending three years with the ICRC in Myanmar.

Major Concepts Related to Our Coursework

• Neutrality
  • Fiona Terry makes the case that many aid organizations have rejected neutrality, particularly since 9/11. She says that aid organizations have instead directed their aid in accordance with Western political agendas (particularly in the cases of Iraq & Afghanistan).
  • Throughout the book, she questions if aid workers should disassociate themselves from their political views in conflicts. She believes that theoretically, yes they should. However, due to her astounding knowledge of the humanitarian aid sector, she is very clear that she believes the time of neutrality has passed – She does offer the caveat that neutrality has been done away with based on multiple factors, such as the militarization of the affected communities for example. So it’s worth nothing that she doesn’t blame aid workers entirely for what she perceives to be the end of neutrality. She presents the scenario of aid workers offering humanitarian assistance to the armed opposition. Emphasizing to her reader that these are real life situations that aid workers have to deal with.
• Repatriation
  • Essentially a process in which aid workers compel refugees to go back to their home country under the assumption that the hostile conditions are no longer present.
  • Humanitarian agencies (specifically UNHCR) have taken it one step further and cut off food to refugees so they’d be forced to go back, often getting killed on return or pushed back out of their home country yet again. What’s interesting about this is it is yet another example of humanitarian aid organizations exacerbating conflict rather than coming in and helping. This reminds me of our Skype chat with Genevieve and the story she shared with us.
  • In the book, this is one of Terry’s main issues that she tackles and it connects to the humanitarian imperative. She argues for integration over repatriation.
• “Refugee-Warrior” Communities
  • Terry argues that international aid unwittingly plays into the hands of rebel movements. The result is “refugee-warrior” communities: militarized refugee camps that use their protected space to fight against their home state.
  • The protections accorded by international law and humanitarian assistance DO help refugee camp-based guerrilla movements gain control over the civilian population (ex. Palestinian refugees in the Middle East, Tutsi refugees who fled Rwanda, and Afghan refugees in Pakistan)
  • The result, Terry concludes, is a deep paradox at the heart of humanitarian action: The international community’s good intentions have created structures of aid and protection that, when injected into disintegrating states without authoritative rule, often fuel violence rather than reduce suffering.(This is essentially the thesis of the entire book)

Key Takeaways

• This book is very informative, there was a lot of information I never knew, specifically terminology and practices that are specific to Humanitarian Aid that I learned (Terms like “repatriation” and “refugee-warrior communities”).
• However, the book is a frustrating read at times. Terry never takes that necessary step to give her own, well thought-out plan of action to overcome this paradox. There are a few pages of vague suggestions, where she waxes on but essentially is just saying “stop forced repatriation,” but not much more than that. We know from her background where she stands in terms of the Nightingale-Dunant debate, so maybe therein lies the answer I’m looking for. However, her background in research and her credibility as an insider in the humanitarian world makes her the perfect person to lay out a plan of action, but it isn’t in this book. Definitely worth reading though, if only to become more aware of this serious problem.
• Also, the book is written in an academic style, so there is theory and some quantitative analysis involved. Which I liked because it allowed me to see the “bigger picture” in some instances, while she also included anecdotal stories and case studies to supplement the flow of the book.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J45cWdDEbm0&t=498s

I’ve been shocked and disheartened throughout this semester to learn how much of a political game is involved in humanitarian aid. In Polman’s book, Crisis Caravan, he addresses this and other issues surrounding the aid sector. One aspect of the book that stood out to me was the fact that Polman outlined how there are hundreds of organizations that run humanitarian aid, and that when a crisis occur, they all go as quickly as possible to the affected location. Polman defines this as “flag planting,” ensuring your organization gets to a disaster area as quickly as possible to lay claim to victims and projects ahead of the competition. What’s ironic is that even in Crisis Caravan, we can see the White Savior Complex creeping in. I say this because humanitarian aid organizations exist solely to help vulnerable populations in the midst of crises. However, staking claims on populations as quickly as possible only goes to prove more so that they see these communities are commodities and nothing more, to promote their brand or their mission. Therefore, we shouldn’t be surprised that they aren’t properly listening to or addressing the actual needs of affected communities: *that was never their goal*

Polman also shows how political and volatile the sector can get. For many countries, the conflicts that caused the humanitarian crisis to begin with were political. And interestingly enough, the CONSEQUENCES of the conflict are political as well. Conflicts often resulting in large wealth gaps, lack of access to basic living resources, etc. In Crisis Caravan, Polman addresses apolitical factors in countries like Iraq, Syria and Yemen. All of these countries are victims of corrupt political systems that cause humanitarian crises.

In a perfect example of the White Savior Complex, aid organizations are responding to this by simply dumping money into projects and facilities that aren’t working, causing the issue to compound on itself. This is exactly the case in Iraq, as Polman calls them out as one of the most popular crisis responses for donations.

This book, and our class discussions have really opened my eyes to the fact that there is NO escaping the political nature of humanitarian aid work. Even in light of the humanitarian imperative and most aid organizations’ mantra’s of neutrality, there is no way to truly have no stake in the aid you are providing because everything in a conflict is inherently political. Even aid on a local level cannot avoid political motivation and force multipliers. The greatest solution to this problem, although I know there is no fool-proof plan to fix this, would be to adopt the strategy that ECHO has adopted. ECHO is a humanitarian aid organizations who’s mission is not only to provide aid, but to recruit members of the affected communities to interdisciplinary courses where they can learn how to be self-sufficient and industrious. This is the closest that we’ll be able to get to staying apolitical, because those who choose to do for themselves will be able to without incentive from government or aid organizations.

https://youtu.be/ifdODonGG9g

Humanitarian Crisis in Nigeria

One of the biggest issues facing Nigeria during this conflict is humanitarian access constraints across the northeast. Due to the nature of this conflict, humanitarian aid organizations have had trouble providing the necessary care required to help the affected communities. This has been an ongoing challenge despite a significant change in conflict dynamics. The conflict shifted from organized, large-scale attacks characterized by prolonged armed clashes to more sporadic attacks such as suicide bombings. This shift is directly linked to Boko Haram’s significant loss of ground in 2016. It has limited the humanitarian operational space across the northeast while also limiting those in need from accessing vital services. This is such a layered issue, in fact, this is all happening in conjunction with internal displacement and the “return movement” straining resources. In addition, key infrastructure such as health, education, and livelihood facilities remain significantly damaged from the ongoing conflict. The shift in conflict dynamics is likely to remain and continue to limit the access and create food insecurity and health issues.

Crisis drivers:

• Increased sporadic attacks: The nature of sporadic attacks leads to prolonged restricted access because aid organizations have no way of knowing when or how to access the vulnerable populations, or who they even are. In addition, sporadic attacks (like suicide bombings) make it almost impossible to stay neutral and safe.
• Returnees and IDPs: High numbers of IDPs and the steady flow of returnees continue to strain resources
• Damaged infrastructure: caused by ongoing conflict has compounded needs across sectors including health, education, livelihoods, and food security.

There was a shift in conflict dynamics when the Nigerian government prematurely announced the defeat of Boko Haram (BH), with an increase of suicide bombings and IED attacks by the armed group. Despite the claimed victory, the number of security incidents has stayed at the same level seen in 2016, but with a shift away from organized, large-scale attacks.  The two most notable conventional attacks occurred in September in Bama and Logumani where BH launched significant forces at government force outposts. This can be seen as an indicator of BH’s ongoing military capacity in the northeast (although it may be limited). BH has significantly increased the number of suicide
bombings that have used children and infants to carry out the attacks compared to the past three years. This is an indicator that as BH moves more toward improvised tactics as they are becoming increasingly indiscriminate,
raising further protection concerns.

This shift in tactics continues to restrict humanitarian access across the northeast, especially in Borno state,
limiting aid workers from reaching those in need and also preventing those populations from accessing vital
services such as health facilities. Humanitarian access outside of Local Government Area HQs is still very limited by the security situation and therefore people living in more rural communities are often unreachable. The number of returnees from Cameroon, Niger, and Chad is low but steadily exacerbating the humanitarian crisis in the northeast with the capacities of both host communities and humanitarian response becoming strained. The returnee influx has been associated with pull factors regarding the perceived improvement in the
security situation.

The number of IDPs across the northeast has seen a slight decline this year as individuals return to their place of origin. However, over 1.7 million people remain displaced and the majority of IDPs are located within
Borno state in areas with limited humanitarian access.

This crisis is so layered that it’s hard to even keep up with all the facets of cultural life that is being destroyed due to this conflict. The conflict in the northeast has significantly damaged key infrastructure, particularly education
and health facilities. Despite ongoing repairs to these facilities, there is still a significant gap between capacity
and need. Essentially, the conflict is exacerbating itself at this point! Furthermore, attacks on health facilities continue to compound the issue because neither the affected community nor health officials want to be in a targeted area (which is sad because health facilities are supposed to be a neutral space). Disease outbreaks this year, notably hepatitis E and cholera, have been exacerbated by this exact issue.

Overall,  the conflict has had a significant impact on food security in the northeast, limiting production and also food
availability in local markets. The main concerns now are 1) humanitarian aid workers somehow getting access to the vulnerable populations, and 2) getting basic necessities like FOOD and MEDICINE to the affected community.

Unfortunately, the local NGO’s who actually do have access to the affected populations are mostly corrupt and preying on the vulnerabilities of those in need. Thousands of human rights violations by fake local NGO’s have been reported in the last year.

This crisis is ongoing and very likely to be ongoing for many years as the conflict has only sped up with time.

Throughout this course, we have been exposed to different readings which have enlightened us students to the reality of the humanitarian aid sector. For this post “Crisis Caravan” by Linda Poleman will be evaluated. Poleman’s writing relates to our class discussion in which we assess the actuality of humanitarian work being political versus apolitical. This also can transcend into a conversation about the role of the military and the effects the military plays among these sectors. In the chapter entitled “Afghaniscam” Poleman explains the small threshold that separates humanitarianism and war efforts according to civilians. She states that “people can no longer tell the difference between “real” neutral humanitarians and reconstruction groups disguised as humanitarians” (142). This results in violence against aidworkers based off of anger aimed at U.S. soldiers. The confusion stems from the false belief that humanitarian work is an “instrument of war” (143), leading to the confusion between humanitarian aid and war intervention.

As sociological students, we want to look further into such topics and see how the discrepancy between apolitical and political tactics are implemented and how these affect situations. As mentioned in class, we are able to discuss and question whether humanitarian work can ever be completely removed from politics. NGOs are said to have been a force multiplier in Afghanistan. To be a force multiplier means to be a part of a team to push a political agenda. Linda Poleman comments on this in “Crisis Caravan” when she focuses on George W Bush’s reaction directly after the attacks on 9/11. Ideally, George Bush describes that he expects NGOs to be a force multiplier along with the military and diplomats; making NGOs political. This helps pose the question: In what kinds of humanitarian responses can be apolitical? After such a tragedy to one’s home country, such as 9/11, it is difficult to revolt against the wishes the President has implemented to attempt to correct the situation at hand.

When evaluating whether or not humanitarian work can be apolitical we must decipher ideally what political versus a political work would look like. In a study entitled “Is Humanitarian Action Independent from Political Issues” by Jonathan Whittall, the legitimacy of humanitarian aid work is being questioned. Whittle uses Joseph Nye’s model for understanding global powers in order to enhance his argument and evaluate more in-depth the effects the Cold War has played upon the views of humanitarians. Below is a Ted Talk by Joseph Nye where he explains this in more detail.

https://www.ted.com/talks/joseph_nye_on_global_power_shifts/transcript?language=en

In shorter detail, Whittle uses Nye’s model when he states that “drawing on the notion of this three dimensional chess board, this analysis of the relationship between humanitarian aid and political power will refer to the three current power structures as: the unipolar or the Western uni-pole; the messy multi-polarity of (re)emerging powers; and the diffusion of power” (Whittle). Basically stating that even dating back to the cold war, western views and nationalism have affected the political factors of humanitarian aid work. Nye cleverly uses these three power structures to show how humanitarians can begin to gain back the legitimacy of once being less influenced by political powers. He makes this clear when he notices the problems associated with the sector claiming that “these steps… allow humanitarian actors to regain their legitimacy and face with integrity the push-back from those in power who see the delivery of assistance as impinging on their political and military strategies” (Whittle).

References

Nye, Joseph, director. Global Power Shifts . TED, www.ted.com/talks/joseph_nye_on_global_power_shifts/transcript?language=en.

Polman, Linda. The Crisis Caravan: What’s Wrong with Humanitarian Aid? Translated by Liz Waters, Metropolitan Books, 2010.

Whittall, Johnathan. Is Humanitarian Action Independent from Political Interests? – Sur – International Journal on Human Rights. 1 Sept. 2015, sur.conectas.org/en/is-humanitarian-action-independent-political-interests/.

Growing up I thought Americans were the superheroes of the world. When I heard stories about America helping other countries after an earthquake or a famine I felt proud. I thought foreign aid was one of the best things we did as a country. But after taking this class and especially after reading The Crisis Caravan, by Linda Polman, I believe that aid is usually a carefully disguised bribe to achieve America’s military and political goals.

Polman’s book focuses on war zones like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia, to show how time and time again, aid that was meant for victims of wars actually ends up in the wrong hands and makes things worse for the people in these countries. And many times, that was probably the original intention of the American military and policy leaders who determine the use of aid.

The only time aid is apolitical is when it is emergency aid in response to a natural disaster. Emergency response aid is often given because ordinary citizens who are stunned by the death and destruction demand that their leaders offer help. Since multiple countries all over the world usually give this type of aid, no specific country’s political agenda can be tied to it. The other kind of aid that usually doesn’t have a political agenda is aid focused on health, like the efforts by the Gates Foundation and some governments to combat malaria, HIV/AIDS and other diseases. Healthcare aid saves millions of lives and usually is not tainted by political agendas.

Most so-called humanitarian aid, however, is given to promote by the interest of the country giving the aid. We learned in this class, from Polman’s book, and from the experience of the humanitarian workers in Emergency Sex, that despite the best intentions of many aid workers, self-interest is usually at the center of most of America’s humanitarian-aid programs. Aid given during wars for example, is almost always motivated by a desire to help the side we support. Even when we claim the aid has a humanitarian purpose, it can’t help but be political when two sides are fighting over resources. That is why we see situations where aid is diverted to help the wrong people, or sold to fund a war, or used for other corrupt purposes by someone in the country who has their own political agenda.

America’s aid programs have often been part of campaigns to win “the hearts and minds” of people in a war zone or developing country. Many nations, including ours, have used aid to convince people in a particular country that the nation giving the aid is on their side. It is actually a bribe, and a sneaky and malicious one; since the people receiving the aid are usually so desperate they have no choice but to accept.

The Peace Corps, founded by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, is a good example of using aid as a “force multiplier.” America was involved in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, which was sending hundreds of high-level aid workers all over the world to show people in developing countries the benefits of communism.The Peace Corps was a direct effort to use aid and aid workers to counter the Soviet Union’s propaganda in developing countries and instead promote the American ideals of democracy and capitalism.

Most foreign aid does act as a force multiplier to achieve America’s political and military goals. Aid always comes with strings attached and no matter what our government says about their “good intentions” to help the poor and suffering people of developing countries, when you scratch the surface you always find selfish and often evil motives. Polman quotes Colin Powell, then, George W. Bush’s secretary of state who said in a speech, “Just as surely as our diplomats and military, American NGOs are out there serving and sacrificing on the front lines of freedom…. NGO’s are such a force multiplier for us, such an important part of our combat team. (Polman 140). Powell’s quote makes clear that America doesn’t offer aid because we care about starving children, we do it because we want to achieve our own political and military goals.

Even charity in Alamance County can be seen as a “force multiplier.” Every bit of charity given to Alamance County residents, whether it’s food stamps, free medical care, or low income housing, makes it possible for big corporations to continue to pay people wages that do not allow them to support themselves and their families.

In summary, I believe aid is a trick. People think they’re getting something for free, but they’re really being manipulated by the powerful people who run the world. The governments and non-profit organizations that provide aid get good press for doing it, but in reality they are just helping to perpetuate an unequal system where some people have so much extra they can give it away, and other people have so little, their only chance of survival is to beg for help from the 1%.

Works Cited

Polman, Linda. The Crisis Caravan: What’s Wrong with Humanitarian Aid? Translated by Liz Waters, Metropolitan Books, 2010.

Cain, Kenneth, Heidi Postlewait, Andrew Thomson. Emergency Sex (And Other Desperate Measures): True Stories From a War Zone. Ebury, 2006

Schadlow, Nadia. “There Is No Neutral.” Foreign Policy, 17 Mar. 2011, foreignpolicy.com/2011/03/16/there-is-no-neutral-2/.

Gans, John, et al. “The Coldest Days of the Cold War: Lessons from Two American Presidents.” Center for American Progress, www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2008/09/26/4964/the-coldest-days-of-the-cold-war/.

“Military Intervention and the Humanitarian ‘Force Multiplier.’” Research Gate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261775902_Military_Intervention_and_the_Humanitarian_Force_Multiplier. Accessed 17 May, 2019