Crisis Caravan

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)

This entry was posted in Assignment 8. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

2 Comments

  1. Posted April 8, 2019 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    The quote you pulled from Kennedy and illustrates a really important point that I also got into with my blog post which is the true motivation behind the founding of the Peace Corps from an American perspective. I definitely agree that it was done largely in part to make the US look better on the world stage by making us seem like we are “taking care of” other countries. I also think that a large part of the reason was to make Americans feel better about how we as a nation so dramatically, and often negatively, impact other nations.

  2. Posted April 8, 2019 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    I agree with your statement about local aid organizations. While Elon students may be viewed as force multipliers because we impact the overall reputation of Elon, I do not think local aid organizations are heavily influenced by politics. Political and military leaders are more focused on larger scale operations because there is more money involved. Most small organizations are too small to be noticed by these leaders and are focused on different issues.