The question of whether or not it is our duty to offer aid to those who are suffering is one that I would’ve said quickly agreed with and not thought twice about before taking part in some of the discussions in this class. When asked if we should help others, most people will automatically say yes. However, the humanitarian imperative question is one that is complex and does not have one correct answer, as frustrating as that is. As humans it is in our nature to help those around us, but at what point does offering aid do more harm than good?
The idea of the humanitarian imperative reflects our empathetic nature as humans. The ability to empathize with others makes us truly human—for instance if we were to walk past someone who had just been assaulted we would see their pain and instantly offer our help. Practically every organized religion stresses the idea of helping others and being selfless. Due to this, many organized religious groups engage in this concept of “voluntourism” and emphasize the importance of giving back to struggling countries. The idea of empathy is not one that is solely characterized by Western values, rather it is something that transcends borders and sparks something within all of us to aid others (Arcaro). The U.S. is fortunate enough to have the resources available to offer aid to struggling people, but empathy is one that characterizes all of us despite our ability to act on it.
Despite the intention of humanitarian aid being pure, are we really helping others in a completely unbiased manner? Whenever we engage with people who have a different set of values, practices, and beliefs than us, there is a degree of marginalization that can occur either directly or indirectly. Nowadays, donors in a given area can exceed 200, but the uncoordinated and corrupt nature of humanitarian aid itself can complicate the delivery and the quality of the aid as well, (Polman). The U.S. as a world leader has typically had the mindset that it is our responsibility to help those who are struggling and intervene. Historically, the U.S. has also maintained this mindset. Going back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a common standard of achievements for all people was set, stating that “inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, (“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”). However, with desire to aid others also comes with an ethnocentric mind. As we discussed in class, people in power choose to further whichever economic and political systems keep them in power, (SOC371:2-13). With that comes racism, sexism, and classism. Thus, it is virtually impossible for these structures, which have been embedded with these biases, to offer pure aid without ethnocentrism seeping in (Arcaro).
We need to refrain from put our idea of “progress” ahead of people’s own ideas for development and transformation, (Lentfer). While it may be our “duty” to offer aid to others, there is a difference between contributing to the development of the country based off of their specific needs and in their cultural context, and implementing what we think is best. Abu-Sada dives into this idea and emphasizes that what “we” experience is not what “they” experience, (188).
There is a sense of irony in the fact that in a system which at its core was built on a sense of empathy and desire to give all people a sense of security and justice can contain marginalization and corruption. Evidence of this can be seen in in Oxfam’s #Metoo scandal. Syrian women disclosed that sexual exploitation or abuse and women has largely been ignored, mostly due to the fact that there are little to no legal repercussions for sexually assaulting a woman in in a warzone, (Powell). This abuse was so widespread that some women chose to forego aid in fear of a tarnished reputation. This is just one example of the corruption and marginalization that seeps into humanitarian aid and although this specific issue was addressed, it only highlights a deep-rooted sense of ethnocentrism.
There is no question that our humanitarian aid system is in need of reform. Although it is virtually impossible to achieve a system of aid that is free from marginalization, we need to realize that just because we are offering aid doesn’t mean that this aid is necessarily effective in relieving suffering. To acknowledge that humanitarian aid is an unsolvable problem will only act as a disservice to the host country and to those who do contribute resources and skills that improve the quality of life for struggling people, (Kopinak). While there is no one correct answer to the question of how to fix this system, it is important to recognize that it is ever-changing and there may not be a clear end-goal. Rather, we must recognize the importance of the Human Declaration of Rights and as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. paraphrased, the “arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
This Ted Talk talks about the paradox of humanitarian aid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J45cWdDEbm0
Thoughts after last class:
I thought that our discussions last class about the different perspectives on the humanitarian imperative were very eye opening. What really stuck out to me after hearing it in class and reading about it in Dr. Arcaro’s blog post was the concept of mirror neurons. The concept of empathy intrigues me deeply so acknowledging the biology behind why we feel this towards other people really enhanced my understanding of aid. We are driven by a desire to help others and feel for those around us. However, another key point I took away is this idea that as humans, we cannot give to others purely. Humans are constantly monitoring interactions and evaluating what they can get out of it. This is why the humanitarian aid sector has so much corruption and marginalization embedded, because we cannot truly give to these struggling people without at least a little part of us analyzing how it can also benefit us.
Abu-Sada, Caroline, editor. In the Eyes of Others: How People in Crises Perceive Humanitarian Aid. Editions Antipodes, 2012.
Arcaro, Tom. What is the ‘humanitarian imperative’? 21 Mar. 2018, https://blogs.elon.edu/aidworkervoices/?p=985
Kopinak, Janice. “Humanitarian Aid: Are Effectiveness and Sustainability Impossible Dreams?” The Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, 13 Mar. 2013.
Lentfer, Jennifer. “Two Ideas to Retire.” How Matters, 15 Mar. 2018, www.how-matters.org/2018/03/15/two-ideas-to-retire-empowerment-capacity-building/.
Powell, Catherine. “#MeToo Hits the Humanitarian Aid Sector: Time to Close the Accountability Gap.” Council on Foreign Relations, 27 Mar. 2018, www.cfr.org/blog/metoo-hits-humanitarian-aid-sector-time-close-accountability-gap.
United Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
3 Comments
I thoroughly enjoyed your analysis of the humanitarian imperative. One of the biggest problems with humanitarian aid, as you highlighted, is ethnocentrism. Sometimes our urge to help clouds our judgment as to actually help. Also, we want to give aid so badly that we don’t stop to take the time to actually find out the root causes for the conditions that people may be living in. Like you highlighted with the Syrian women that is one strong example that you used. I also really liked how you established that no there is no one answer on how to fix this problem. But, a start is actually implementing the UN’s declaration of human rights. It is a good starting point and hopefully if we combine that with dropping that ethnocentric lens we can begin to provide humanitarian aid in a beneficial way.
I agree with your first comments, prior to this class I also had never questioned humanitarian aid and the problems with it to this degree. I think that it is important to think about our duty to help vs the harm that it can potentially do at a certain point. I like how you pointed out that it may be a “duty” to offer aid, but we have to think about what is best for others and not what we think is best. Everyone’s cultures are different and I think it is important that you brought up how often global northerners just instill their own ideals and systems. There are many situations in which there have been corruption with humanitarian aid, and I think you pointed that out well.
I think overall, you do a fantastic job of criticizing the humanitarian imperative and examining the reasons that it is a less than perfect system/philosophy. Your opening captures this very well by acknowledging that we still do not, nor may we ever, have a clear answer to the humanitarian imperative, but that we still need to examine the way that it is impacting communities today and think about if the work that is being done is truly effective in helping others. Bringing up religious mission trips is a wonderful way to connect the urge to be humanitarians and help others to everyday life; many people affiliate themselves with an organized religion and have participated in one of these religiously sponsored trips themselves. This stereotypical image of church kids going to paint a school in Haiti is a powerful image of people who see themselves as doing good, but may end up having a very different impact than what they intended. I also really appreciate how multiple times you bring up the harm of “indirect marginalization” and the responsibility that global northerners have when they are doing humanitarian work to acknowledge and check their own privilege. Lastly, you bring up an excellent point that often, when doing aid work, global northerners attempt to instill their own systems and beliefs into the local culture. This is seen in Emergency Sex when the UN (a group made up of many Westerners and Western ideologies) go to Cambodia in order to facilitate democratic elections for the first time in the country’s history.