humanitarianism and le roi lion

So I just finished reading two articles that I really enjoyed. The first, a UN report on diverging growth and development published in the 2006 World Economic and Social Survey (06). This report discussed a lot of what we cover in IPE- ie, how globalization affects development, specifically the divide between the developed and developing nations. Our classroom readings and discussions have been relatively shallow, however, when compared to this report. I have never had such an engaging and detailed description of foreign direct investment, private investments, different domestic strategies for integrating the benefits of trade, infrastructure, etc etc. It took everything we have ever covered in college and dove significantly deeper into each subject, deconstructing them to discover where exactly problems lie, and backing it up with sound evidence. It took actions that in IPE we dismiss as ineffective and counterproductive and showed me where and why they are problematic. Just have to say, it was excellent, and did a good job of presenting a well rounded viewpoint on development. If you are interested in development/econ/poverty, check it out.


Moving on to a shorter and more easily explainable article that I also found really interesting... Appearing in Foreign Affairs, David Rieff's "Humanitarianism in Crisis" discussed a recent shift in humanitarianism, as well as its implications. In the good old days of aid work, neutrality was key. Organizations were supposedly non political and tried to help everyone, everywhere, for the simple fact that they were people. This could mean assisting victims of natural disasters, victims in civil wars or conflicts, where ever. Their motivations were diverse, whether compassion or Christian duty. The focus of the aid was simply that- to aid. The only time they would pull out would be if there was a loss of funding or if they were doing more harm than good, such as making people targets by providing them with supplies.
By the end of the 90's, these humanitarians were become disheartened and disillusioned by the seeming ineffectiveness of their work, and many were swept up in new humanitarianism. This "new" humanitarianism is built on the principle of human rights; if a government is not protecting the rights of its people, the aid groups have an obligation to provide for them. To address the base causes of health problems appeared more effective than the relief of the previous century.

As governments and militias became more violent toward the aid workers, who espoused the rules of the UN and Geneva conventions, they began calling for peacekeepers like NATO forces to assure their safety and transport. By essentially militarizing aid, relief work quickly became highly political. When a nation or military force goes in, it goes in to win, which invites total violence and destruction of the enemy. This, tied into the fact that many aid agencies are unable to refuse donation contracts from organizations like the UN, makes them all the more politicized. By focusing on human rights and the contractual obligations between government and their people, aid organizations try to affect the root causes of the issues they treat, such as poverty and infrastructure. They also create a group of people who are "not worth" aiding- people who, if they were aided, would subtract from the overall political goal. This author argues passionately that humanitarianism has lost the neutrality that made it so acceptable and beautiful before- perhaps it was ineffective in the grand scheme, but it was present. Today, politicized aid workers are targets of violence. Of course, the article goes much deeper than this into a variety of issues regarding aid, but I found the dichotomy between old school neutral aid agencies and new age politicized agencies to be really interesting.

Which is better? Well it depends. Some aid agencies provide only band aids- food, medical care, education, sanitation, etc where it is needed most. This saves lives, and often helps prevent problems like disease and malnutrition from spreading through a population. Other agencies attempt to initiate plans and projects to create sustainable systems of self help with the potential to influence politics. Honestly, I believe both of these are necessary, and perhaps agency specialization is in the best interest of everyone to prevent overlap that wastes resources; we cannot forget to keep our efforts coordinated, however. The author argues that above all aid must be neutral, or else it is indeed not humanitarianism, but instead a political agenda often accompanied by guns and NATO troops. It's neutrality or nothing.
David concludes the article by saying, "So many people, including relief workers, now speak of 'mere' charity, 'mere' humanitarianism- as if coping with a dishonorable world justly, and a cruel world with kindness, were not honor enough."


And on a different subject entirely, I watched le Roi Lion tonight (the lion king) in French and was infinitely pleased, because it is my favorite movie and I was able to understand some dialogue.