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

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

Crisis Caravan gives an incredible insight into the faults with the humanitarian aid sector. We have discussed it in class in great detail and even gotten to speak with some aid workers but there is something so captivating and compelling about reading the tales from the ground. As discussed in class, it is hard to separate politics from aid work but it is an interesting dichotomy to discuss.

When we think of aid work we think of two things: natural disaster relief or medical care in war zones. We imagine people with red crosses on their backs rushing into foreign countries to help the poor orphan children whose lives have been disrupted by their country’s backwards ways of life. Because of this it is hard to imagine aid work not having some sort of political agenda. Polman refers to aid as a “permanent part of military strategy,” alluding at the fact that she does not think that there can be a separation between people’s innate wanting to help those less fortunate and the political agendas that fuel this world. Aid work is a tricky thing to say is apolitical. There are times when it can, indeed, be apolitical like in the case of natural disasters. There is not political force to fight against; it is just nature that has disrupted the lives of those impacted by the disaster. So, on the surface it would appear that natural disaster aid work would be one of the few forms of aid work that can be seen as apolitical. But, digging deeper into this we may still see hints of politics in this kind of work. For example, which countries do Americans flood into when natural disasters occur? America tends to send aid to countries that either have the potential to be political allies or are already political allies such as Israel. In other cases, America virtually ignores countries or territories such as Puerto Rico. Dichotomies such as this is what makes it hard to say that there is a such thing as apolitical aid. There are situations in which it is clear that aid work in certainly not apolitical. This is the case in aid when it comes to wars. The Cold War exposed a lot of this practice. When the Soviet Union and the United States were locked in the cold war aid work became a pawn (Polman, 103). The Peace Corps, created during the Cold War, was a way of getting into non-allied countries to try to spin global approval in the favor of America (Rieffel, 2003). This shows that even if the Peace Corps was going into a country to help with something like natural disaster relief there will always be those political undertones at the core of the organization (Whittall, 2015). Further, I think it irresponsible for humanitarian aid to attempt to be apolitical 100% of the time. If an organization is going into a country locked into war, like Afghanistan, and they are only treating medical injuries occurring but not trying to address why these injuries are occurring then that are truly doing more harm than good. The phrase ‘hearts and minds’ seems to be an idea that is to try to break down national barriers but in a way adding the minds part keeps those barriers up. When we focus on people’s minds and how they operate that just brings back the idea that we are different by these different identifiers thus causing more ethnocentrism. It is like one of those “well why doesn’t their mind think in the same way that mine does?” situations. It feeds into the fact that it is hard to have apolitical work because if someone is in a war zone then the minds of some may be geared towards violence and then what is an aid organization to do?

Addressing the issue of the Peace Corps in relation to the idea a force multiplier it is absolutely fair to look at as such in regards to the purpose of its creation. The Peace Corps, at its’ root, was made to form those connections globally in order to have more global partners that viewed the United States as a strong ally to potentially have. It is easy, thinking of such a powerhouse aid organization, to then lump all American aid forces as aid multiplier. This view point comes from multiple critiques on aid work in general. For example, Polman outlines, on page 146, how after 9/11, billions of dollars for aid were sent to Afghanistan. While this sounds like an incredible thing, there were no aid workers who were actually willing to go into the country to do work on the ground, nor were the funds being tracked meaning they could not ensure that the funds were actually being allocated to aid work. Knowing these details, it is easy to look at this ‘donation’ as just a ploy to bring Afghani opinion into the favor of the United States after the disruption to society in the Middle East that America has caused. When looking within the United States and whether or not those can be seen as political tools/ force multipliers I think the answer is absolutely. Often times, we see politicians doing work for minorities during the campaign trail to gain the favor of minorities and then when they are elected all the care for them seems to go out the door. It is interesting to think of because if, with America, we can’t even do work for each other out of the goodness of our hearts with no ulterior motives then how can we expect the same to happen abroad?

Crisis Caravan ultimately left me with a lot of questions if that wasn’t evident in the post above. It is a critical look at the aid sector but a perspective that needs to be taken. Ultimately, I don’t think it is possible for aid work to ever be 100% apolitical nor do I think it should get to that point. But, something has got to change; what that is exactly is still up for debate.

Polman, L., Waters, L., & Polman, L. (2011). The crisis caravan: Whats wrong with

humanitarian aid? New York: Picador.

Rieffel, L., & Rieffel, L. (2016, July 28). Reconsidering the Peace Corps. Retrieved from

Reconsidering the Peace Corps

Is humanitarian action independent from political interests? – Sur – International Journal on

Human Rights. (2015, September 01). Retrieved from https://sur.conectas.org/en/is-humanitarian-action-independent-political-interests/

As is the case with many of the questions we have considered during the course of the semester, I had never considered the apolitical and political ties that are connected to humanitarian aid. Prior to this class, in my mind aid was always a good thing. I never truly thought about the motivations behind it and instead just believed that there couldn’t be any true wrong in trying to help people and get involved in situations that needed it. After many class discussions and readings about humanitarian aid, I have realized that aid is often not just strictly about helping others. In Crisis Caravan, Polman argues that “aid has become a permanent part of military strategy.” The line between political and apolitical aid can be very hard to distinguish and is not always black and white. It is important to consider the reasons and motivations behind the aid and who exactly is involved. Although there is no real answer to the question if humanitarian aid can ever be apolitical, I think it is rare that there are completely no political parties or political motivations involved with aid. I think that typically there is some type of political gain from humanitarian aid. As we have also talked about in class, often the United States foreign aid does not necessary go to the neediest nations, but instead those where we can get something back from (SOC 376: 2/20). This shows the political factors that are woven in with humanitarian aid. Even if a nation is very needy, the United States may not choose them to help over another nation who could give them something in return. As Polman talks about in Crisis Caravan, “the humanitarian aid community that travels to war-torn, crisis-ridden countries feels no embarrassment about looking like an international jet set on holiday” (50). She points out how it is clear that it is not just selfless work that they are doing, as it is also often to make one feel good about themselves as they travel in luxury through these countries. There are also more and more “well-meaning” organizations in these areas that can just complicate the intended assistance and get in the way of each other.

The Peace Corps is one organization that embodies the idea of Western intervention and aiding those around the world with supposedly purely good intentions. The mission statement of the Peace Corps is to, “Promote world peace and friendship by fulfilling three goals: to help the people of interested countries in meeting their need for trained men and women, to help promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the people served, and to help promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of Americans” (About Peace Corps). Although this is the overall goal of the Peace Corps and they have achieved a lot of good, it is fair to look at it is as ‘force multiplier’ as well. Kennedy’s vision when creating the Peace Corps was originally based on the idea that “a new army should be created by the United States.” This army or “force” would be made up of volunteer citizens that would assist underdeveloped nations and those in need (Kennedy Establishes Peace Corps). Due to the fact that it was looked at as another military for the United States, it is obvious that it was not apolitical and a force multiplier for the US. As mentioned before, it has become more common for the United States foreign aid to be political and have aid workers and organizations involved in the politics.

Although there are probably many more issues with aid development efforts being political on a large international scale, aid locally and domestically can also run into similar problems. Local groups are more likely to be motivated by personal community issues and not as involved in bureaucracy issues, so I would think that the aid is more revolved around giving and helping others. However, I am sure that there are issues no matter what the organization is and politics can always seem to get involved. Even if the groups are smaller locally they can still be influenced by political actions that may benefit them.

This is a Ted Talk by Linda Polman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifdODonGG9g

Works Cited:

“About Peace Corps.” Peace Corps, www.peacecorps.gov/about/.

“Kennedy Establishes Peace Corps.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 13 Nov. 2009, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/kennedy-establishes-peace-corps.

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

SOC 376: “Being/Becoming a Global Citizen” (SOC 376: 2/20)

Flintoft, Caroline. “Human Suffering as a Political Tool.” We Forum, 1 June 2018, www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/using-human-suffering-as-a-political-tool/.

Lischer, Sarah Kenyon. “Military Intervention and the Humanitarian ‘Force Multiplier.’” Global Governance, vol. 13, no. 1, 2007, pp. 99–118. JSTOR.

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

SOC 376: “Being/Becoming a Global Citizen” (SOC 376: 2/6-4/3)

In Polman’s book Crisis Caravan, he addresses the several issues surrounding the aid sector and its backing based on how flawed organizations such as the Red Cross along with government agencies create issues based on external factors. Having participated in the aid sector but never truly understanding the political agendas and business requirements needed to have a functional aid system. Through countries and organizational’s alternative motives in regards to handling both funds as well as resources for the aid sector, it is inherently flawed and apolitical. Throughout the various organizations that run humanitarian aid, there is almost a need to be involved in any location that is undergoing extreme poverty, war, or political turmoil and because of this there is a disconnect between the actual aid that needs to be provided and what is actually provided. Polman in the glossary defines this term 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” (Crisis Caravan Glossary). The aid sector has been corrupted by organizations that seem to be based on principles of helping those in need no matter the cause however there has been a transition into a business based model structured around personal gain and not addressing the actual issues at hand. 

Polman furthers his discussion of the various issues existing in the aid sector through addressing the apolitical issues in several countries. For many countries, the issues surrounding those who need aid are primarily based on political corruption which either results in a large wealth gap, lack of access to mandatory living resources and ultimately war. In Crisis Caravan Polman addresses these apolitical factors in countries like Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and  Sudan. In all of these countries war and destruction has torn them apart creating large issues backed by political benefactors attempting to regain power through force. Guerilla warfare and bombings of their own people have made providing aid in this sector to be extremely difficult as well as dangerous. Yet as Westerners, we think by simply donating money to the organizations responsible for providing aid in these war-stricken countries will solve a family without access to proper medical treatment or foods problems. Polman writes, “No matter how often the Red Cross rules may be trampled underfoot…the humanitarians persist in brandishing their Red Cross principles and accept no responsibility for the abuse of their aid” (pp. 10-11). The passage depicts the problematic status quo of the humanitarian aid sector in regards to its efforts to give out the proper help and need to be tiered towards each location they are actively working in. Rather than attempt to develop plans and strategies for providing the most effective form of aid they are simply dumping money and funds into projects and facilities that aren’t working. In Polman’s analysis of the humanitarian aid sector in Iraq, which is the most heavily donated to a country in terms of aid, almost all their major projects and efforts were a waste and never were finished nor came close to. After billions of dollars from charities and relief funds were poured into the country it still was improperly handled and the projects left Iraq worse off than if they had never intervened. 

Before taking this class and learning more about the pros and cons of the aid sector, I would have never considered whether or not aid is political/apolitical. To people who may not be versed in the field, aid is just aid. However, one of the key concepts that I have taken away from this class is that there is no such thing as giving just to give. As we discussed, the social exchange theory suggests that we expect something in return through a cost-benefit analysis (SOC376: 2-18). For that reason, there is always some other motivation behind giving aid than out of the kindness of one’s heart. Pulman states that “aid organizations are businesses dressed up like Mother Teresa,” (177). The line between aid that is political and apolitical is very thin. One can use the social exchange theory to look into the motivations behind these types of aid and what the possible benefits are. As far as apolitical aid, there are few circumstances in which it is the case that there are no political parties or political motivations involved. An example of aid that could be considered apolitical is the aid received by amputees in chapter 4 of Crisis Caravan. Hundreds of civilians injured from the war in Sierra Leone habituated a camp called Murray Town Camp. While the aid organizations were all in competition to bring aid to these people and “plant their flag,” as we discussed in class, the aid being given in and of itself was not political in that there weren’t certain groups of amputees being favored or political motives involved.

On the other hand, there are many instances discussed in the book of aid that is corrupted by political motivations. Places like South Sudan, Yemen, and Syria are just a few of the places that are experiencing human suffering on a massive scale with political motivations behind it, (Flintoft). The war in Syria has seen human suffering from all sides, especially by the regime of President Bashar al-Asaad’s regime. Governmental forces have bombed civilians and rebel groups have carried out their own sieges of civilian areas. The aid and assistance being given to civilians in Syria cannot be done so without considering the politics and different parties involved. In many cases, this can lead to the exertion of Western influence over the country receiving aid. As Crisis Caravan discussed, “winning the hearts and minds” of those receiving aid has long been considered a strategy. Also known as “Phase Zero of warfare,” this strategy involves gift giving from the USA in an attempt to show American generosity as well as promote values. This idea goes back to the idea of White Savior Industrial Complex, as Teju Cole discusses. Cole discusses the view of American sentimentality in that all we see are hungry mouths and “do not connect the dots or see patterns behind the isolated disasters.”

If an appeal to humanitarian considerations can justify both a medical aid operation and a military campaign, doesn’t that suggest that aid workers and international troops represent two sides of the same coin? (145).

When analyzing the founding of the Peace Corps by Kennedy, this idea of the implantation of Westernized ideas and intervention is illustrated. Kennedy’s vision when founding the Peace Corps was to gather “100,000 people a year who would help combat the negative, “ugly American” stereotype that persists abroad to this day,” (Majeski). With this US as a global superpower, we have for many years took it upon ourselves to be a meditator and help those around the world who are in need. This was the basis of the Peace Corps’ founding at the end of the Cold War and thus, it is fair to look at the founding of the Peace Corps as a “force multiplier” in that humanitarian aid was an important part of the military strategy. As far as US foreign aid in general, INGOs funded by the government are “expected to respond as force multipliers,” (143). This has become such a normalized part of the aid sector and with the many international crises that involve political disputes, having aid workers on the ground “winning the hearts and minds” of people and acting as a nonviolent soldier for the US is very common.

Aid development efforts locally and more domestically can be seen as both political and apolitical actions. Local groups are likely to be smaller but still can encounter the same problems as larger, more international groups. Aid development efforts may not involve force multiplying on the same scale as larger INGOs but it is very much still possible to use local organizations to advance efforts. At the same time, aid in local communities tends to be less characterized by these multiple intentions. Not being wrapped up in the bureaucracy of large scale foreign aid, local groups are more apt to be involved with aid and development efforts for the sake of giving. While this is definitely not a universal trend, it is definitely more characteristic of local community groups rather than larger scale ones.

This is a Ted Talk of Linda Polman discussing the aid sector as a whole as well as her book.

Worked Cited

Cole, Teju. “The White-Savior Industrial Complex.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 11 Jan. 2013, www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-white-savior-industrial-complex/254843/

Flintoft, Caroline. “Human Suffering as a Political Tool.” We Forum, 1 June 2018, www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/using-human-suffering-as-a-political-tool/.

Majeski, Quinn. “‘Peace Corps Prime’: Reassessing the Role of the Peace Corps in American Foreign Policy.” The Orator, pp. 80–94.

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

SOC 376: “Being/Becoming a Global Citizen” (SOC 376: 2/18)