The Fog of Humanitariainism: Collective Action Problems and Learning-Challenged Organizations (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Changing Context of Humanitarian Action: Key Challenges and Issues
This chapter provides an overview of the main external (global trends and current armed violence and conflict) and internal challenges facing humanitarian action and the key issues in its agenda. Most have been the subject of broad discussion under the four themes that were selected for the regional and expert consultations that preceded the humanitarian summit (humanitarian effectiveness, reducing vulnerability and managing risk, transformation through innovation and serving the needs of people in conflict). Other unfolded in the process have emerged from policy discussions over the years regarding the meaning and understanding of humanitarian action and its limits and links with development and peacebuilding
2017
Since the end of Cold War and especially since the onset of “the War on Terror” under the George W. Bush Administration, the political and militarized character of humanitarian action and aid, which had already long been politicized, has been reinforced. This was observed especially when civil-military cooperation (CIMIC) started to take place in the 1990s. Various actors, including aid recipient governments, local rebel groups, donor governments, and the military—in particular the U.S. Government and military—as well as the socalled Islamic “terrorist” organizations have been (mis)using aid and NGOs. As a result, already weak or non-existent humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence are being lost. Divisions of roles between aid workers and military actors have become blurred as the latter are suspected to have morphed into humanitarian aid workers. While a military is involved in combat and simultaneously conducts humanitarian operations, using a “winni...
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.