David S Bassiouni1
Dilemmas in Providing Humanitarian Assistance in Crisis
Environments
Contents:
INTRODUCTION
1. CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS
2. THE DILEMMAS
2.1 Humanitarian assistance as a factor in
prolonging conflicts
2.2 Upholding political expediency at the cost of humanitarian
action
2.3 Regionalisation of peace-keeping
2.4 Pursuing justice on a grand scale as a factor in creating
humanitarian problems
2.5 Economic interests undermine peace efforts and prolong
conflicts
2.6 Lack of integrated approach in the delivery of humanitarian
assistance
2.7 Denial of basic human rights to people in need
3. CONCLUSION
See elsewhere: Author's Biography
(appendix C)
Introduction
The occurrences and prolongation of intra-state civil
conflicts show no sign of abating. More non-state parties are emerging as major
actors in conflicts. They and several authorities caught in the quagmire of
violence are either unaware of their obligations to the International
Humanitarian Laws (IHL), Human Rights Laws and associated principles, norms and
standards or disregard them with impunity. The net result is an environment of
fear, insecurity and total denial of the basic human rights for millions of
victims of armed conflicts world-wide. Efforts to establish access and provide
assistance to these victims pose some of the most challenging dilemmas to the
international humanitarian community in our times. This paper attempts to
capture the essence of these dilemmas and their influence on the delivery of
humanitarian assistance and the associated ethical questions which humanitarian
actors are compelled to constantly grapple with. It in no way provides adequate
answers to these dilemmas but emphasises the paramountcy of the best interest of
the victim as the action point of last resort.
1. Critical Assumptions
The selection of the major dilemmas is based on a number of
critical assumptions relevant to the humanitarian sector. They include the
structural causes of humanitarian crises and their protracted characteristics,
the resort to humanitarian response in place of political action, when
prevention has consistently failed, and the lack of international leverage in
stopping conflicts.
The root causes of humanitarian crisis are closely linked to
social, political, economic, religious and ethnic factors which cannot be
eliminated overnight by the waving of the magic wand. They are likely to persist
and continue to trigger crises. Whereas the ideal approach is to forecast crises
in advance and proceed to either prevent and pre-empt it or prepare for it, in
the real world, this scenario hardly occurs. On the contrary, in the absence of
effective preventive measures, the world has now reluctantly come to accept
victims - refugees, IDPs etc. as the normal feature of humanitarian crises. It
has also been compelled to accept humanitarian response rather than prevention
as the standard remedy to crises.
Alleviating suffering and saving lives are necessary and
noble acts, but this merely amounts to "treating the symptoms and manifestations
of the disease without curing the patient".
Globally, the international community lacks the necessary
leverage over parties in conflict, especially when they are non-state parties.
Coercion could work, but peace-keeping operations have their advantages and
disadvantages.
Unless these dilemmas are addressed, they will continue to
frustrate the efforts and best intentions of humanitarian and human rights
workers.
2. The Dilemmas
Based on the critical assumptions enunciated, the paper
resorts to a number of criteria to select seven major dilemmas for
consideration. These include factors that:
- impede the effective delivery of humanitarian assistance in civil
conflicts
- deny basic human rights to affected populations
- prolong crises into long protracted emergencies
The few selected dilemmas include:
- humanitarian assistance as a factor in prolonging civil conflicts
- upholding political expediency at the cost of humanitarian assistance
- regionalisation of peace-keeping
- pursuing justice on a grand scale as a factor in generating humanitarian
problems
- economic interests undermine peace efforts and prolong conflicts
- lack of integrated approach in the delivery of humanitarian assistance
- denial of basic human rights to people in need is tantamount to denying
them life-saving assistance.
2.1 Humanitarian assistance as a factor in prolonging
conflicts
A debate has been going on, on whether humanitarian
assistance benefits the victims of conflicts or merely sustains the arsenals and
war machinery of parties in conflict. Seizure and control over transport and
logistics, food and supplies intended for victims, and employment opportunities
created by the aid industry come readily to mind. The challenge to the aid
workers is whether to use the delivery of assistance as a trump card to force
compliance or be acquiescent. Presuming they resort to the first option, is it
ethically acceptable? What price in terms of human suffering and lost lives
would be required to support such an option ? Can we afford it ?
Whatever situation one operates in, it is important to
monitor and determine how much assistance trickles down to the targeted
beneficiaries. At the same time, it is incumbent upon the aid workers through
their interlocutors and leadership outside the country to be open and
transparent in exposing the abuses of humanitarian assistance as a deterrent to
future untoward actions and the tendency to walk away with impunity.
2.2 Upholding political expediency at the cost of
humanitarian action
The recent blockade and intervention of ECOMOG/ECOWAS into
Sierra Leone to restore an elected government presents a good case of how
political expediency was given priority and paramountcy over humanitarian
action. Any effort to undertake cross-border operations and assist populations
in need was viewed as a legitimising action bolstering the fortunes of the
military Junta in power. The likely result is that by the time the military
Junta falls, Sierra Leoneans would have suffered untold misery and paid dearly
with their lives. It is rational to present the counter-argument that decisive
actions by ECOMOG in Liberia and Sierra Leone could usher in peace, democracy
and elected governance. However, it is highly debatable whether allowing
humanitarian assistance into Sierra Leone could, in the long run, save and
legitimise the Junta. Humanitarian assistance has been flowing into Somalia for
years without ever conferring legitimacy upon any faction in that country.
2.3 Regionalisation of peace-keeping
Peace-keeping over the last few years has witnessed a trend
towards regionalisation. The role of ECOMOG/ECOWAS in West Africa and NATO in
Ex-Yugoslavia bring to the fore the debate on the merits and demerits of the
regionalisation of peace-keeping operations which has so far been the domain of
the United Nations. Although this trend is a welcome departure, it is wrought
with certain difficulties. On the one hand, assuming responsibility for
maintaining order and peace in ones backyard is commendable. On the other, if
regional peace-keeping is not based on even-handedness with all parties in
conflict, it has the potential to convert a well-meaning mission into part of
the problem.
2.4 Pursuing justice on a grand scale as a factor in creating
humanitarian problems
For the government of Rwanda to enjoy credibility with its
people, it must be seen to be exercising justice by bringing the perpetrators of
genocide to trial. However, the slow mill of justice has created the largest
concentration of detainees in the world living under the most appalling
conditions. With 130,000 detainees held in several prisons and cachots in the
country, even operating with the most efficient legal system in the world, it is
estimated that it would take about 200 years to bring all detainees to trial. In
the meantime, the appalling state of prisons is causing major humanitarian
problems. The challenge there is whether humanitarian assistance should be used
to improve prison conditions and inadvertently encourage the government to place
more of its citizens in detention or support activities that address
life-threatening problems and assist the government to find creative, lasting
solutions. This could include introducing an appropriate Rwandan version of the
South African Truth Commission or supporting the recent government initiatives
in engaging detainees in public works and promoting community courts.
2.5 Economic interests undermine peace efforts and prolong
conflicts
Over the last few years, parties in conflict have usually
used their hold on power to control tracts of territory and exploit the natural
resources therein to feed their war chests. Timber, minerals, and oil are
examples of how illicit trade in a number of countries in crisis has contributed
in a significant way to prolonging civil conflicts. Most of these trades are
based on the bartering of raw materials for small arms. Hence, the proliferation
of small arms in some regions, e.g. Africa. These trades are very lucrative and
many faction leaders have a vested interest to see them continue even at the
cost of prolonging conflicts. Efforts at sanctions have not yielded the desired
results. The challenge is how to bring about the necessary pressure to bear upon
the source of the illicit trade - the buyers - and this way deprive the sellers
of their customers. If this cycle of unholy alliance could be broken, we would
have found some solution to one of the most intractable causes of sustained
protracted wars.
2.6 Lack of integrated approach in the delivery of
humanitarian assistance
Rivalry and competition amongst aid agencies often provide
factional leaders with ready instrument to use one agency against the other.
Solidarity is broken. Efforts at complementing each others strengths and acting
in unison, should remain the guiding principle for operational agencies at the
field level. The question is, whether the humanitarian actors should maintain
solidarity even when populations are placed at risk. The real test to what level
a unified approach and solidarity could be maintained should always be that the
best interest and survival of populations at risk remain paramount.
2.7 Denial of basic human rights to people in need
By denying basic humanitarian assistance to crisis victims
(i.e. not giving access to humanitarian actors), they are being deprived of
basic human rights. Also, the actual modalities of furthering human rights
while delivering humanitarian assistance in a conflict produces its own dilemma
by creating insecurity for humanitarian workers who may be viewed as "spies" in
the eyes of some parties to the conflict. The challenge is whether such rights
should be guaranteed through coercion/enforcement or by creating a culture of
respect for human values and dignity. A critical examination of the attitudes of
authorities that choose to ride roughshod over the rights of their citizens may
provide some clues that could contribute to the greater understanding of this
particular dilemma.
3. Conclusion
The dilemmas that humanitarian actors encounter in the
delivery of humanitarian assistance are real. They are likely to continue to
impede the effective delivery of assistance and frustrate peace initiatives and
prolong conflicts into protracted emergencies. As aid workers grapple with these
dilemmas, the best interest of the victims must always remain paramount. The
argument is advanced that the greatest tragedy in humanitarian action could be
the acquiescence by the humanitarian community to accept in despair a culture of
co-existence with crisis. On the positive side, the new leadership in the
humanitarian field is unlikely to allow such a culture to hold root.
