Principles, Politics, and Humanitarian Action

Abstract

The tragedies of the past decade have led to an identity crisis among humanitarians. Respecting traditional principles of neutrality and impartiality and operating procedures based on consent has created as many problems as it has solved. A debate is raging between “classicists,” who believe that humanitarian action can be insulated from politics, and various “political humanitarians,” who are attempting to use politics to improve relief and delivery in war zones This essay examines the pros and cons of impartial versus political humanitarianism and differing approaches across a spectrum of actors, including the classicists, led by the International Committee of the Red Cross, who believe that humanitarian action can and should be completely insulated from politics; the “minimalists,” who “aim to do no harm” in delivering relief; the “maximalists,” who have a more ambitious agenda of employing humanitarian action as part of a comprehensive strategy to transform conflict; and the “solidarists,” exemplified by Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders), who choose sides and abandon neutrality and impartiality as well as reject consent as a prerequisite for intervention. The essay argues that there is no longer any need to ask whether politics and humanitarian action intersect. The real question is how this intersection can be managed to ensure more humanized politics and more effective humanitarian action.

NGO Presence and Activity in Afghanistan, 2000–2014: A Provincial-Level Dataset

“…However, although several scholars and practitioners have attempted to categorize aid activity in recent years (Atmar & Goodhand 2002;Barnett 2011;Barnett & Snyder 2008;Calhoun 2008;Fast 2014;Goodhand 2006;Leader 2000;Weiss 1999) there is no agreed upon definition of what constitutes an "advocacy" or "political" NGO. For example, Atmar and Goodhand (2002: 11) distinguish between organizations working in conflict and working on conflict.…”

The responsibility to protect as humanitarian negotiation: A space for the ‘politics of humanity’?

“…And somewhere, despite all the outcry, leaders know that the same people calling for intervention may repudiate it the moment it goes wrong. (Rieff, 2008a) There is by now a rich literature, the very literature which nurtured the sense of a 'humanitarian identity crisis', on the disruptive, dangerous and sometimes devastating consequences of ill-considered humanitarian action, both within the context of 'traditional' humanitarian assistance and military humanitarian intervention (Weiss, 1999;Rieff, 2002;Weissman, 2004;Barnett and Weiss, 2008;Barnett, 2011).…”

HPG research report agricultural rehabilitation

“…Much of the recent literature on humanitarian principles notes the difficulties in applying the principles in practice (e.g. Charny, 2004;Keen, 1998;Weiss, 1999), and events in 6 Approved in 1991, UN General Assembly Resolution 46/ 182 states that 'humanitarian assistance must be provided in accordance with the principles of humanity, neutrality, and impartiality ' (cited in FIFC, 2004). The Red Cross…”

“…Also referred to as `classicists' (Weiss, 1999), these agencies and individuals share a continuing commitment to the core humanitarian principles, particularly that of neutrality. Proponents of this position argue that the more highly politicised the terrain, the more urgent is unswerving and unabashed fidelity to the core principles (Harroff -Tavel, 2003).…”

“…Three broad -and, at times, overlapping -positions have been identified at a conceptual level among humanitarians in relation to humanitarian principles (in particular the role of neutrality) and political agendas (FIFC, 2004;Leader, 2000;Weiss, 1999):…”