Politics, history & problems of humanitarian assistance in Sudan

Abstract

It is increasingly widely recognised that humanitarian assistance is broadly understood in two distinct ways: one is to see it as a part of foreign policy, which is the customary position of donating states; the other is to see it as independent of governments and a matter of relieving suffering without distinction and is embodied in the Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross/ Red Crescent family. The present authors argue that any intervention is necessarily a political event and they support this contention with an examination of assistance in Sudan in general and Darfur in particular. In describing the way in which donating states concentrated on the settlement between Khartoum and south Sudan to the detriment of intervention in Darfur in time to forestall massive human slaughter, the authors are pointing to political failure. They also maintain that the consequence of not recognising and examining the political nature of humanitarian assistance is to reduce people affected by emergencies of all kinds to the status of victim, which deprives them of the ability to be the principal agents of their own recovery.

Oil for health in sub-Saharan Africa: health systems in a 'resource curse' environment

“…This is what distinguishes ODA programmes from humanitarian assistance, the latter remaining within the remit of soft-power foreign policy [ 24 ]. Yet, humanitarian assistance itself can be instrumental to foreign policy, as shown by Middleton and Keefe [ 46 ] in the example of Sudan. Furthermore, ODA policies fulfil multisectorial objectives, and thus represent also the commercial interests and defining values of the transnational companies with which governments enter into partnership at the level of higher politics.…”

“…The most publicised case involved Talisman Energy, the largest western company involved in Sudan at the time, which ultimately withdrew from its oil operations in the country in 2003, in response to shareholders' concerns over human rights abuses. During the last years of the north-south conflict (2000–2004) and under implicit or explicit political agendas [ 46 , 114 ], the international community spent huge amounts of money in humanitarian aid, essentially as food distributions. The direct monetary contribution to health through this process barely exceeded 5% of the total.…”

The humanitarian protectorate of South Sudan? Understanding insecurity for humanitarians in a political economy of aid

“…This approach emphasises principles such as humanity, neutrality, independence and impartiality as the main determinants and drivers of humanitarian aid. The other end of the scale shows a more politically embedded approach, referred to as a Wilsonian (after former US president and secretary-general of the League of Nations), or maximalist, approach (Goodhand 2002; Middleton & O'Keefe 2006). Alternatively, these two poles are sometimes referred to as ‘emergency humanitarianism’, which restricts itself solely to life-saving activities, and ‘alchemical humanitarianism’ which seeks to remove the causes of suffering, and moves closer to the field of development (Barnett 2011: 22).…”

Data-Driven Decision Making in Fragile Contexts: Evidence from Sudan

“…In addition to looking at how conflict affects livelihoods in Darfur, one must consider how changes and adaptations in livelihoods affect conflict. The role that humanitarian actors and NGOs play is crucial to consider given that humanitarian aid and other forms of assistance are not isolated from local dynamics and instead constitute the political economy of conflict (Middleton and O'Keefe 2006). A study conducted by Young et al (2007) describes some of the ways in which changing livelihood strategies affect conflict.…”