Humanitarian Aid - Allison Ray

The concept of modern aid began in 1859 after the Battle of Solferino in Italy when local citizens came together to care for injured and dying soldiers on both sides of the battlefield. Henri Durant, a Swiss Calvinist businessman, witnessed the town’s generosity and was inspired to set up the International Committee of the Red Cross. Linda Polman’s book, The Crisis Caravan: What’s Wrong with Humanitarian Aid?, explores the negative aspects of humanitarian aid, accusing organizations such as The Red Cross and several others of serving their own financial interests before those of their victims.

            Polman’s first argument is for that of innocent victims, whom she claims are being affected more than ever. In Chapter One – “Goma: A Total Ethical Disaster”, she uses the Hutu and Tutsi crisis in Rwanda as a powerful example. First, Polman describes how humanitarian aid organizations responded to the crisis only when funds had been raised by local organizations to help refugees suffering from cholera. She writes, “As more money became available, more humanitarian aid organizations came to Goma to help spend it, and with them more journalists to film their rescue efforts (Polman 18).” Polman continues on to describe how journalism essentially funds NGOs by offering what can basically be called “free marketing”. This funding makes it possible for aid organizations to settle in crisis areas for prolonged areas of time without contributing to the formation of a permanent solution. Chapter Two – “Contract Fever” reflects further on the money-driven actions of these organizations. Polman explains that plentiful funding opportunities have caused a large growth in the modern aid market. These NGOs battle for contracts to increase their finances and give them a competitive advantage over organizations in the same region.

            The third chapter of Polman’s book entitled “MONGOs” or “My Own NGOs” points fingers at small self-started organizations that collect donations for a cause. The author references Henri Durant claiming that; “The ladies’ auxiliary committees and isolated enthusiasts that Henri Durant watched dabbling on the battlefield of Solferino in 1859 are experiencing a renaissance in the form of MONGOs. As a direct result of those volunteers’ lack of knowledge and experience, Dunant lobbied for the establishment of a professional aid organization. His International Committee of the Red Cross became a reality, but the MONGOs remained. And multiplied (Polman 50).” MONGOs conduct no studies and therefore cannot prove their worth in most cases. The Rwandan Tutsi regime expelled fifty MONGOs a year after the genocide was organized because they could not prove who they were or why they were there. Polman makes serious claims that they are yet another example of how humanitarian aid efforts can influence a rise in the exploitation of crisis victims.

Chapter Five – Aid as Weapon of War summarizes Polman’s beliefs and offers solace as to why she claims, “Aid organizations are businesses dressed up like Mother Theresa (Polman 177).” Although she does not refute the cause behind these organizations she claims that they are operated in a manner that is focused purely on funding and fueled by free press from journalists. The lack of required validation and authority to collect donations for supposed causes without providing sufficient information to the individual making the donation is another reason they cannot be trusted. In order to right these unmonitored wrongs, journalists must refute the pursuit of these organizations and report truthfully with reputable references – even if it means not making the front page. In addition, public governments must attempt to develop a system that regulates any NGOs operating in or out of their territory. Restrictions should be set regarding timeline and who/how the program assists. Polman offers no direct answer to this issue, but requests that we safeguard future help and “…no longer exempt the [emergency aid] system from criticism.”

Humanitarian Aid

The principle concern Linda Polman raises in her book is the fact that humanitarian aid is not making it to the right people. When INGO’s go into a country, they often have to give away a percent of their aid to warlords, generals of governments, etc in order to reach their destination and start helping the people they originally set out to help. Polman mentioned in her book that anywhere from 15-30 percent is a normal amount of aid given away to the ‘bad guys’ by INGOs. Often times a lot larger of a percent of aid finds itself in the wrong hands. I personally think this is ridiculous and appalling, but I also understand why it happens.

I think it is ridiculous and appalling because organizations should not have to negotiate with these groups (often considered terrorist groups) just to enter a country that usually does not even belong to the groups. These humanitarian aid organizations are usually entering countries that once belonged to the people they are trying to help, but have since been taken over by another country or terrorist group during war. The United States as a nation refuses to negotiate with terrorists so I cannot understand why we make an exception when it comes to humanitarian aid groups negotiating with these same terrorists. I understand that a lot of these humanitarian aid groups are not based out of America and do not have the same rules and mindset as we do, but that does not make them negotiating with terrorists and acceptable thing to do.

The reasoning behind my understanding of aid falling into the wrong hands is the fact that at least there is some good coming from it. A lot of things individuals do on a regular basis require some sacrifice before any good can come from their actions. These warlords are requiring percentages of aid and will block the humanitarian aid groups from traveling to their destination unless they are compensated. I assume that these warlords would have no problem killing the volunteers in these humanitarian aid groups if they attempted to get past the warlords without satisfying the warlords’ needs. If the individuals in these humanitarian aid organizations are killed or they cannot get through to the people in need, the mission becomes pointless and instead of what originally would have been only a percentage of the aid, every little bit of the aid will end up in the wrong hands or the money and supplies may not make it to any people in need at all and just have to return to the country it was donated from.   

In her book, Linda Polman states that, “Aid organizations are businesses dressed up like Mother Teresa.” By this, I believe Polman is trying to say that aid organizations look like they are doing an incredible amount of good on the surface, but really aren’t if you look in depth at the amount of good they are actually doing. As I previously discussed, a lot of the aid ends up in the wrong hands. They are taking people’s money (like businesses do) and resources and giving a fair percentage of them to the ‘bad guys’. Polman even mentions in her book that a humanitarian aid organization ended up helping Saddam Hussein’s regime earn $250 million in a single year, 1992. Humanitarian aid groups normally have a positive connotation in our minds but we need to start looking at them more critically and stop ignoring all the help they are actually giving the ‘bad guys’. This is what we can do to make humanitarian aid successful. We should be able to know exactly where our money and resources are going so that we can make an informed decision on whether we want to donate to these aid organizations or not. I feel that if we start putting more pressure on these aid organizations, they will stop being so generous with their donations to warlords and try harder to make sure a larger percent of the aid gets to the people in great need.    

Bibliography   

Polman, L., & Waters, L. (2010). Aid as a Weapon of War. In The crisis caravan: What's wrong with humanitarian aid? (pp. 95-105). New York: Metropolitan Books.

Aid Organizations

What Linda Polman seems to be concerned with in her book is that aid organizations are getting picked apart by not only war-torn villages in places like Sudan and Sierra Leone, but by the warlords and criminals who are tearing the places apart. At each checkpoint, it seemed the journalist who was trying to conduct interviews with the people in charge of the aid organizations were either “busy” (one tried to say he had malaria), or the journalist had to pay some kind of fine or barter something in return for passage. And by most of the research conducted by Polman, it suggests that over half of the aid that goes to these villages has to pass the same ordeal at these checkpoints. Because, at Polman points out, militias need aid, too, right?

A news report about ministers debating about aid to Greece.

Polman refers to aid organizations as “businesses dressed up like Mother Teresa” because of the amount of sugar-coating each business gets. Most of the NGO’s in places like Sierra Leone exchange more of a business deal with war criminals and splinter cells located in the regions than those who actually need the aid. As stated in the chapter, and above, most of these aid distributers have some sort of contract or exchange with local entrepreneurs to cash in on some of the aid that is dropped or transferred into the country. These aid companies get to pay their employees (usually about $85 a month or so) and in return, most of the organizations will keep quiet about what’s really happening in the villages (i.e. that most of the aid doesn’t actually reach those who need it). Also,

Take for example, World War II. In 1942, Polman discovered that an aid organization had some knowledge about what was really happening in the concentration camps located throughout Germany. However, because of its need to be impartial and unbiased, they kept silent and in return, the aid organization was able to continue sending in aid to the local towns who still needed the help.

In order to make humanitarian aid successful, Polman suggests that the public, and mostly journalists, ask the tough questions. She stated that most journalists take an aid organization’s word as gold, and don’t question where the actual money or aid is going. She says we should ask questions such as where is the money coming from? Where is it going? Do warlords get the aid or are towns getting the help? Polman suggests that we don’t just take whatever public service announcement each aid organization gives as the word of God. Instead, we should be analyzing each one and making sure the public knows exactly where its money is going.

Medecins Du Mond volunteer to give aid to refugees in Greece

One such organization that could be questioned is the World Bank, especially after it agreed to bailout Greece during its economic downfall. However, these types of organizations also like to compete with each other. For example, Polman says if the World Bank doesn’t immediately offer aid, another will take its place. And if Europe doesn’t offer, then countries like China will be in there immediately to take over and reap the rewards.

The Problems with Humanitarian Aid

Haiti @Unocha.org

With the amount of traumatizing disasters and events going on around the world, the need for humanitarian groups that focus on providing the people stuck in these situations with whatever they may need- food, clean water, and medicine being some of the most in demand products- is only growing. With the rise in demand of help over the last few decades, the world has seen many groups step up to the plate and help. However, there are many issues and barriers that humanitarian groups have to face in order to fulfill their purpose.

In The Crisis Caravan, Linda Polman- who is a Dutch author that specializes on humanitarian aid and intervention- points out the many issues that comes with being involved in humanitarian aid that are caused not only by the many hostile and corrupt groups that are usually located in a lot of developing countries, but also by the humanitarian group themselves.

South Sudan soldiers stealing UNICEF aid @NYDailyNews.com

The biggest problem that these groups face are the fact that they are most often stopped by rebel groups who won’t let them pass into the territories without some sort of “payment”. Polman says that the percentage of the aid that the groups want changes with every warlord. Some will take as little- relatively little, I suppose- as 15 percent, while others will take as high as 80. Also, when dealing with these negotiations, the humanitarian groups have to be very careful at how they approach the situation. The groups deal with many different types of people- who often have conflict with one another. As the six ICRC workers- who helped the Lendus people despite what their enemies the Hema people wanted- demonstrated, crossing the wrong people can result in death.

The aid usually ends up not reaching the people it was donated for in most situations. The warlords use it to supply their own armies. However, even when the aid does reach the designated village, the humanitarian groups find that they have created their own problems. Polman says that there are some cases of groups finally getting to the victims, and realizing that they do not have the resources that are needed the most, like adequate medical care.  Because these groups usually operate under the slogans that every little bit helps, they are usually left with completely useless resources to give to needy people.

Humanitarian aid has also turned into an industry, with many NGOs fighting to receive the money needed to fund their missions. On page 177 of The Crisis Caravan, Polman says that “Aids are businesses dressed up like Mother Teresa”. I believe that she uses that phrase to describe modern humanitarian aid because they have turned into businesses, and it has become an industry where every dollar and every mission that is ‘successfully’ completed means that there is a better opportunity that they can continue doing what they need to do. However, this leads to a lot of corruption within NGOs. Because they’re so dependent on donations and grants, they have to keep a relatively clean image to the public. This leads to a lot of NGOs hiding the fact that- a good portion of the time- the aid is falling into the hands of the people who are arguably causing so much of the disarray in these regions.

That image doesn’t make it to the public, though, and the image that NGOs are putting out- through media- is a more ‘saintly’ one, like Mother Teresa (which even her image is debatable in some circles, but for the most part, she’s regarded as a saint).

NGOs are seen as the unbiased, neutral light in war torn countries, but that doesn’t mean that they are without fault. Polman says in the afterword that she doesn’t know if there is a solution to making humanitarian aid more successful, but there are a few places that we can start.

UN meeting discussing humanitarian aid @MFA.gov.tr

First, we have to start holding journalists that cover these groups more responsible for telling a complete story about the conditions within these groups. Polman says that journalists, despite being trained to get a well-rounded story with many different sources, usually just take whatever NGOs say about their missions with very little question. This only contributes to the misconceptions about NGOs and humanitarian aid in war-torn countries.

If we can get that to happen, then the public can be more knowing- they’d have to care, first, but if they’re donating, then they probably already somewhat care- of who they’re donating to, and can put more pressure onto NGOs to handle their operations better. The public knowing could also help push pressure onto governments around the world to set up systems for assessing the overall performance of NGOs since there seems to be no real standards for how NGOs should be operating. This allows the agencies to control themselves, and it’s being shown that they aren’t feeling any need to reform they’re practices.

It would be ideal to live in a world where no one is in need of humanitarian aid, but it would also be naïve to sit around and wait for it to happen instead of trying to fix the current issues that are preventing humanitarian aid from working. I believe that with a little more regulation from the government, a little more coverage from the media, and a little more urgency from the public, we can collectively come together and solve these issues.

Climate Change and Human Rights

I believe that human rights has a negative impact on climate change and that climate change has a negative impact on human rights. Human rights has impacted climate change negatively because the things people decide to do in their everyday lives pollute the environment, cause global warming, etc. Until recently, there have not been many rules and regulations that keep people from harming the environment. Now that these regulations have been put into place, climate change has been reduced slightly but still not by much. What has to happen in order for climate change to completely discontinue is new technological advances that replace current emission and chemical releasing technology.  

As long as humans have the right to make their own decisions in their everyday lives, a majority of them will most likely continue to do things that harm the environment and cause climate change. A small percentage of all the humans on Earth though, will be the ones that are negatively impacted by climate change and the rights of other humans. The humans Elizabeth Lindsey was talking about in her Ted Talk are the humans that are affected by climate change. These humans did not do anything to cause the climate change as they live off the land the same way their great ancestors did. They live so simply and have no daily practices that give off chemicals and emissions but yet they have to suffer from the people who do live that way. I understand that it is difficult to live the same way these individuals do especially if you live in a country like America, but we could at least try to live more similarly to these individuals in as many aspects possible.

Farish Noor discusses a lot about how Eurocentric countries and individuals are blind and ignorant to the ways other countries do things. Eurocentric individuals and countries seem to think that the way their country does things is best and that they need to control the ways other countries do things. Noor discusses that if we were each just a little more open to other countries’ ways of doing things and thinking about things, it could make people a little less Eurocentric and more open to global ways of thinking and behaving. Countries are also so power hungry nowadays and always want to be in control of things, including entire countries. These countries have a high level of Eurocentrism. They believe they are always right and they try to force their beliefs and ways of doing things on other countries. If we were all just a little more knowledgeable on other countries practices and beliefs, Eurocentrism would be less of a problem and the world could work together a lot better.     

Bibliography

Lindsey, E. (n.d.). Ancient Wisdom for a Modern World: Dr. Elizabeth Lindsey at TEDxMaui. Retrieved October 10, 2015.

Meijers, & Noor, F. (2001). Beyond Eurocentrism. Dealing With Human Rights. (pp. 49-73). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.

Human Rights and Climate Change in England

                        When it comes to human rights, England is far ahead of its time. In fact, the history of human rights in the United Kingdom dates back farther than any other country in the world. King John of England issued the Magna Carta, a major proponent of human rights legislature, in 1215. This document became known for its support of habeas corpus, whereby a human being cannot be detained or imprisoned unlawfully. In the 1600s John Locke, an influential Englishman of the Enlightenment insisted that life, liberty, and possessions were properties of a human being that were unalienable.  He is quoted as saying that every person is equal and free but may have to exchange some of their liberties to advance in society. Locke also assisted in authorizing England’s Bill of Rights in 1689, which prohibited cruel and unusual punishment and created a shift toward the rule of law – limiting the power of the monarch and government officials. In comparison to modern times, not much has changed. England is still at the forefront of the human rights movement, is home to some of the most influential human rights activists, and continues to issue legislation in support of the rights of it’s citizens. However, when it comes to environmentalism the country unfortunately lags behind.

            “You have the right to enjoy your property peacefully,” reads Protocol 1, Article 1 of the Human Rights Act, issued in 1998 and adopted by the United Kingdom in 2000. This Act is composed of sections that codify the protections established by the European Convention of Human Rights, an international treaty overseen by the European Council and focused on protecting human freedoms. Unfortunately, Protocol 1, Article 1 does not ensure a clean and healthy environment for those whose properties it protects. Rachel Godfrey a research intern at the Institution of Environmental Sciences, wrote in her article The Political Aspects of Environmentalism inthe U.K. that, “Environmental activists are silenced once economic stability and success is seen to be under threat and the voices of those arguing that the economic costs of environmental protection are too great to carry greater weight (Godfrey 8).” Environmentalism is a human rights practice that is consistently placed on the back burner when it becomes too costly.  In fact, it seems somewhat ironic that an issue affecting all human beings is not valued as priceless.

            That’s not to say there aren’t any English organizations attempting to change this injustice. The Human Rights Watch is a nonprofit nongovernmental international org that was established in 1978. The Watch works extensively with local groups to press for changes in policy and promote human rights. According to the organization’s website, “As the world urbanizes and industrializes, and as effects of climate change intensify, environmental crises will increasingly devastate the lives, health, and livelihoods of people around the globe. A lack of legal regulation and enforcement of industrial and artisanal mining, large-scale dams, deforestation, domestic water and sanitation systems, and heavily polluting industries can lead to a host of human rights violations.” The HRW has intervened in Kenya when a factory poisoned a community:

They have also been actively combatting Zimbabwe’s water and sanitation crisis:

The Human Rights Watch also sets a perfect example for combatting eurocentrism. Although based in England, they are proactive across the globe and intervene in a variety of right movements including: Children’s Rights, Disability Rights, LGBT Rights, and Women’s Rights. More specifically, they act in coherence with Farish A. Noor’s article Beyond Eurocentrism, which states, “In our rapidly changing global environment, we are now confronted with stark socio-political realities that cannot be simply ignored. Lifestyle and quality of life vary significantly among different sections of the globe. The lifestyles pursued in many of the developed areas of the world community have serious consequences for other areas of the world as well (Noor 49).”

            Why is it that a country known throughout the history of the world as being a major player in the human rights movement is so lenient when it comes to an emerging issue as urgent as that of environmentalism? Although there are organizations in addition to the Human Rights Watch that are beginning to recognize and combat the effects of waste and climate change in third world countries around the world, what they must realize is that change starts with those of us who have the means to make a difference. If countries like England do not take proactive measures themselves they cannot successfully implement these measures in countries like Kenya and Zimbabwe who are dealing with the brunt of these environmental issues.

Climate Change, Human Rights, and Italy

claimer.org

Climate change takes away the basic human rights of being able to have a home, food, and water. Due to Western consumption, these violations disproportionately target poor and developing countries around the world. This leaves the problems of deforestation, air and water pollution, toxic environments that demote food production, and food scarcity to affect what are probably the most marginalized people in the world. As these people fight for their basic right to live, the West continues to turn a blind eye to them.

Unfortunately, by continuously ignoring that Western ideals and culture are what’s fueling climate change and- by default- human rights violations, Western society is beginning to also be impacted by the world’s inability to keep up with Eurocentric practices. These impacts are recreating the world’s racial, religious, gendered, and geographical inequalities within the West itself.

For example, Italy- or more specifically, southern Italy, which is considered to be the agricultural backbone of the entire country- is facing many environmental issues that are byproducts of trying to survive as a country in world that is constantly consuming.

Venice, Italy Flooding @ ctvnews.ca

Southern Italy, like most Southern European countries, is losing majority of their trees and forests due to the rising temperatures and diminishing rainfall. Experts believe that the decreased rainfall could also lead to an increase in evaporation in the Mediterranean region. The decreased rainfall, coupled with the extreme weather and the flooding in Southern Italy is believed to be leading to a lack of fresh, usable water and unstable lands for agriculture, which may result in a reduction of the yielded summer crops. 

For example, this could lower the production of regional cork, which is a major industry in the region

This could possibly prove to be detrimental to the already slumping south, that relies mostly on the exportation of their agricultural goods and tourism to stay afloat. It also widens the economic gap between the South and the North, which- as I presented in my first blog post- is a problem that is becoming so big that the two geographical regions are constantly at each other’s throats over the inequality and stratification of resources that stems from it.

Fortunately, Italy is one of the countries leading the charge in Western society to take control of the environmental issues. They’ve made huge gains in cleaner technology (like solar energy), and they have many organizations that are pushing for environmentally friendly solutions to their recycling problems and decreasing their greenhouse effect.

However, Italy can’t do it alone. The West in general can’t reverse climate change alone.

The West vs. the World @sites.google.com

We, in developed society, are so focused on having the best ideas of how a society should run that we don’t realize that we shut out other cultures and other ways of thinking. When we think of human rights violations, we automatically think about dictators in Asia, Africa, and Latin America that maliciously deny their people of necessities. We do not think of the strain we put on these countries to conform to our society. We do not think of the factories we set up in these countries that contribute to their human rights issues. We do not think that we’re causing their problems.

We believe that these countries don’t care for human rights, but it’s really just the fact that they might value something different than we do. For example, here in America, the last few years have been a constant debate of our freedom of speech or our freedom to arm ourselves against the government. Those are the freedoms that we hold most dearly in this country at the moment. So, when we look at countries that don’t promote free speech or defense, we criticize them.

In actuality, these people are probably more concerned with just having the right to live life and not having to struggle for nutritious food and fresh water. They’re more concerned with the right to live in a peaceful society, free from war (that we arguably cause a lot of the time).

Our egos in the West are the most dangerous thing that these cultures encounter, because our egos do not allow us to take responsibility for our actions and the role we play in climate change and human rights.

We need a less Eurocentric way of viewing this world in order to change anything, and to do that, we have to open our minds to different cultures and their methods.

Farish Noor’s main point, in the reading of Beyond Eurocentrism, is that we, as a global society, will never achieve truly equal, diverse, multicultural society until the West puts aside its superiority complex and its disrespect for what is different. Until then, the solutions to our problems, like climate change, will be limited and Eurocentric ways of thinking about these problems all will forever be our biggest obstacle in tackling human rights violations.