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.”

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.