Identifying Contemporary Civil Wars' Effects on Humanitarian Needs, Responses & Outcomes (original) (raw)
Related papers
Post-conflict contexts and humanitarian organizations: the changing relationship with states
The operational environments for humanitarian international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) are conflict zones and situations of natural and man-made disasters. To INGOs, these are defined as " humanitarian crises. " Post-conflict situations present far less clear-cut choices for humanitarian INGOs. This article queries whether humanitarian crises continue into post-conflict periods. Clearly, the question is not for humanitarian INGOs to answer on their own, as host governments have their own perspectives on the nature of crises, a perspective which generates political sensitivities for the relationship constructed between states and humanitarian INGOs. The nature of this relationship changes as a conflict transitions from active war to the early days of peace. This article researches the changing relationship between the humanitarian INGO Médecins Sans Frontières (Holland) (MSF-H) and the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) in the period 2009–2012. Many variables contributed to the decision-making on continued presence in post-conflict Sri Lanka by MSF-H against the security policies of the government of Sri Lanka. Priorities such as protection, witnessing, and medical aid were in tension with governmental policies related to the emerging peace and the changing context. A " war—immediate post war—post conflict " transitional framework based on Koselleck's definition of crisis is proposed to help organizations understand the war-to-peace transition and construct their relationships with states. This crisis analysis is set against the background of the literature on linking relief, rehabilitation, and development and Walter Benjamin's conception of peace. Throughout, the focus is on the concept of transition.
Conflict and Health, 2015
Background: Global health policy and development aid trends also affect humanitarian health work. Reconstruction, rehabilitation and development initiatives start increasingly earlier after crisis, unleashing tensions between development and humanitarian paradigms. Recently, development aid shows specific interest in contexts affected by conflict and fragility, with increasing expectations for health interventions to demonstrate transformative potential, including towards more resilient health systems as a contribution to state-building agendas. Discussion: Current drives towards state-building opportunities in health interventions is mainly based on political aspirations, with little conclusive evidence on linking state-building efforts to conflict prevention, neither on transformative effects of health systems support. Moreover, negative consequences are possible in such volatile environments. We explore how to anticipate, discuss and monitor potential negative effects of current state-building approaches on health interventions, including on humanitarian aid. Overriding health systems approaches might increase tension in fragile and conflict affected contexts, because at odds with goals typically associated with immediate emergency response to populations' needs. Especially in protracted crisis, quality and timeliness of humanitarian response can be compromised, with strain on impartiality, targeting the most vulnerable, prioritising direct health benefits and most effective strategies. State-building focus could shift health aid priorities away from sick people and disease. Precedence of state institutions support over immediate, effective health service delivery can reduce population level results. As consequence people might question health workers' intention to privilege health above political, ethnic or other alliances, altering health and humanitarian workers' perception. Particularly in conflict, neither health system nor state are impartial bystanders. Summary: In spite of scarce evidence on benefits of health systems support for state-building, current dominant line of thought among donors might influence aid strategies and modalities in settings of crisis, conflict and longer-term health system fragility. Negative consequences may arise from dominance of political agendas over health needs, with risk for effectiveness, nature and perception of health interventions. Potential effects in at least three key health areas merit critical review: quality of humanitarian health interventions, tangible contributions to population level health benefits, perception of health and humanitarian workers. To keep health needs as yardstick to determine effective health and humanitarian priority investments, is challenging.
Conflict and health, 2015
Destruction of health systems in fragile and conflict-affected states increases civilian mortality. Despite the size, scope, scale and political influence of international security forces intervening in fragile states, little attention has been paid to array of ways they may impact health systems beyond their effects on short-term humanitarian health aid delivery. Using case studies we published on international security forces' impacts on health systems in Haiti, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya, we conducted a comparative analysis that examined three questions: What aspects, or building blocks, of health systems did security forces impact across the cases and what was the nature of these impacts? What forums or mechanisms did international security forces use to interact with health system actors? What policies facilitated or hindered security forces from supporting health systems? We found international security forces impacted health system governance, information systems and i...
The Changing ecologies of War and humanitarianism
Contemporary protracted conflicts across the Middle East have presented health professionals and systems, as well as the humanitarian response, with unprecedented challenges. The changing nature of warfare has meant that today conflicts are increasingly taking place in urban settings with high civilian casualties and massive population displacements. The medical and humanitarian response to these needs is often partial and inadequate and takes place in settings marked by the degradation and even targeting of humanitarian health actors and establishments. The attacks on MSF health facilities in Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen have underscored the changing roles and responsibilities of humanitarian medical aid in responding to endemic conflicts in the region, and have opened up many broader questions related to rethinking the medical, public health, and humanitarian responses in contemporary warfare. On the 4th and 5th May 2016, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) staff members, civil society, academics, students and members of the public gathered at the American University of Beirut (AUB) to participate in a conference titled “Changing Ecologies of War and Humanitarianism.” The conference was organized by MSF, AUB’s Faculty of Health Sciences, and the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs. The aim of the conference was to critically examine contemporary theoretical and operational challenges to humanitarian action within and beyond the conflict zones of the Middle East. The conference sought to historicize, analyze, and reflect on the changing dynamics of contemporary warfare and the resulting challenges in the provision of healthcare. The two-day conference was held at the Issam Fares Institute in AUB, and consisted of a keynote lecture, four panels, and multiple opportunities for open discussion. Participants were invited to engage in an active and lively discussion on the key themes and draw on lessons learnt that shape the future of research on healthcare under conflict and the practice of humanitarian aid. The conference marked two critical events: MSF’s first project in conflict was in Beirut in 1976; and AUB’s 150th anniversary, which marked the University’s long tradition of medical, educational, and humanitarian presence in the region. The conference was therefore both timely and pertinent. The concept note and program for the conference was prepared by Jonathan Whittall, MSF Head of Humanitarian Analysis, and Omar Dewachi, Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Global Health and co- director of the newly instated Conflict Medicine Program at AUB. The significance of the conference is that it was held at a critical point in time for medicine and humanitarianism. It was not a coincidence that the conference took place one day after the passing of a UN resolution on the protection of hospitals in conflict zones. While humanitarian aid in war zones has always been contested, a survey of recent events across the region suggests an unprecedented number of targeted attacks on medical facilities and humanitarian services. In light of its critical relevance to current events in the region, the conference also formally established the necessity for humanitarian and local academic institutions to collaborate to think beyond the present limits of crisis and put forth options for moving forward. The panels were organized around the following conference themes: ▸ The changing histories and landscapes of humanitarian aid ▸ War on medicine: The targeting and implication of medicine in warfare ▸ Responding to populations on the move ▸ Emerging global health trends in contemporary conflict in the Middle East Building on the themes of the conference, this document reports on the proceedings of the conference and some of the critical points that emerged during the two-day event.
This research examines the relationship between a humanitarian international non-governmental organisation (INGO) and a state against the background of civil war. This relationship is established as two sets of norms in tension: The moral as represented and made operational by humanitarian INGOs and the political as articulated and practised by states, mediated through the discourse of identity. Specifically the study investigates the constructed relationship between the humanitarian INGO Médecins Sans Frontières-Holland (MSF-H) and the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) during two periods of the Sri Lankan civil war (2006 and 2008-2009). A negotiation structure is proposed where an external actor—a humanitarian INGO—attempts to operate within the internal environment of a state. For a state, civil war is a ‘state of exception’, where a government’s prerogative to act outside ‘normal’ legal and moral boundaries may be taken up and where international actors are securitised. For a humanitarian organisation a civil war is defined as a humanitarian crisis which must be responded to using humanitarian principles in a non-political manner. This case study relationship is viewed from both MSF-Holland’s and the GoSL’s perspectives. On the side of the GoSL the study describes and analyses the government’s decision-making when faced by international criticism, a humanitarian crisis, and international organisations attempting to work on its territory. The background for the GoSL’s actions is extensively explored. MSF-Holland’s response to the thinking and actions by the GoSL is also closely examined, as is its internal discussions concerning its role in the context as a humanitarian actor. A discourse analysis methodology is used to analyse the primary source material. It was found that when securitised MSF-H had various options in responding: Accommodation to the demands of the GoSL; withdrawal from the country; counter-attacking the government; or concealment—hiding itself from attention. Rejecting these MSF-H chose desecuritisation. In the 2006 period engagement between the actors was possible albeit difficult; the securitisation process was manageable through desecuritisation. However, in the 2008-2009 period securitisation prohibited action and speech, and desecuritisation was not effective. The thesis proposes a theoretical framework—a negotiation structure, within which to understand these interactions, based on the case study findings. The conclusion points to further research needs and discusses the usefulness of the proposed negotiation structure to other contexts.
Sword & Salve: Confronting New Wars and Humanitarian Crises
Journal of Peace Research, 2007
Arguing forcefully that changing times are a clarion call for new thinking, this book convincingly shows that if humanitarian organizations continue to operate as they have in the past, they will fail to help the very victims whom they try to save. Focusing especially on the emergence of 'new wars,' Hoffman and Weiss insist that humanitarian organizations must recognize that they live in a political world and that their actions and goals are invariably affected by military action. The brand of warfare that erupted in the 1990s-marked by civil or transnational armed conflicts featuring potent non-state actors, altered political economies, a high proportion of civilian casualties, and a globalized media-produced horrors that shocked consciences and led humanitarian agencies to question their unyielding stance of neutrality and impartiality. Indeed, in a departure from earlier norms and practices, some have reinvented their policies and tools and created 'new humanitarianisms.' This authoritative book traces the evolution of the international humanitarian system from its inception in the 1860s, parses the dynamics of war and emergency response from the 1980s through the current disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq, and provides a strategic roadmap for practitioners. By bringing historical perspective to bear, this volume provides an invaluable analytical framework for grasping the nature of humanitarian crises and how agencies can respond strategically rather than reactively to change. Students will find its blend of clearly presented theory and case studies a powerful tool for understanding the roles of state and non-state actors in international relations. By charting the tides of continuity and change, this book will prepare agencies to dodge both figurative and actual bullets that threaten humanitarian action at the outset of the millennium.
Humanitarian Field Practices in the Context of the Syrian Conflict from 2011 to 2018
Humanitarian Field Practices in the Context of the Syrian Conflict from 2011 to 2018, 2020
How can we go about our work of saving lives when, in Syria, civilians, the wounded and their families, medical personnel and aid workers are all targets-whether in areas controlled by the government or those held by the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or various rebel groups with diverging political agendas? Over the course of several field missions, the author of this article, a member of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), sought to decipher the political and military engagements undertaken in different regions of Syria during the war years. He also factored into his analysis the endless flow of data, information and positioning being produced and published over this period, because the war was also fought every day on the internet where the representatives and ideologists of warring groups, human rights organisations, Syrian diaspora organisations and spokespersons of the Syrian central authorities were and still are a permanent presence. Drawing on all these observations and data, the author relates and analyses the emergency relief activities carried out by MSF in Syria, how these activities evolved and the conditions in which choices to intervene and decisions to withdraw were taken.
The Role of Humanitarian Aid in Conflict
Journal of Conflict Management
Purpose: The term ‘humanitarian aid’ has outgrown its traditional Red Cross definition of ‘providing swift emergency assistance to people in disaster or emergency situations’. Today humanitarian action is commonly defined in a broader sense. The study sought to establish the role of humanitarian aid in conflict. Methodology: The research was purely qualitative. Desktop literature review was conducted. Critical analysis of the literature was conducted. Findings: The study found out that it is important to reiterate that humanitarian aid is not neutral in the midst of conflict. Aid and how it is administered can cause harm or can strengthen peace capacities in the midst of conflicted communities. All aid programmes involve the transfer of resources (food, shelter, water, health care, training, etc.) into a resource-scarce environment. Where people are in conflict, these resources represent power and wealth and they become an element of the conflict. Some people attempt to control and ...