First, I have to say that I believe we do not have a humanitarian system. We have a system of different agendas that hurt the humanitarian efforts or goals for certain disasters.
When we were discussing the four types of humanitarianism groups I found that already classifying the different types is the first problem in humanitarian efforts. These different groups have different agendas and ideas of how to carry out humanitarian efforts. The dunantist groups are the most “pure” humanitarian group with an independent agenda from any government. The other three types, Wilsonian, Solidarist, and Commercial are just beyond what a humanitarian effort should focus on or try to get accomplished.
Wilsonian groups are blinded in my opinion by a government backing them and telling them to spread democracy. This hinders the aid groups from helping the people who are in ne
ed of either medical assistance or those who need assistance with finding a temporary place to live, a place to eat, and most importantly drink water and be safe.
The groups who have agendas that include spreading ideologies along with actual humanitarian aid actually have a clouded vision of what is a humanitarian effort. Groups who have more than a humanitarian agenda hurt the process of responding with aiding to a disaster whether it is man-made or natural. For example, Professor Tapia said that one shoe company took a few truck loads of sneakers that did not sell just to get them out of their inventory. However, this company called it a humanitarian effort, but in reality it just added to the troubles of that country who just experienced a disaster. That country now has to deal with all the other problems that arise from the natural or man-made disaster and the new truck loads of unwanted sneakers that does not help the aid process.
Some of the strengths of the humanitarian system is that there are so many organizations that set up shop in the country or region that needs aid and begins to administer help. However, this does cause communication problems between all the organizations involved in the efforts to help the people who need it.
In my opinion, I believe that the best organization that responds to disasters with effectiveness is the US Military. Our military is one of the best responders to any disaster because it is so well organized and the resources that are available make it very easy to respond to all types of disasters. For example, our United States Navy has the resources to reach any area of the world to give aid whether it be a man-made or natural disaster. The US Navy can treat people aboard the USNS Mercy or USNS Comfort (large medical ships, floating hospitals), like we did during the January 2010 Haiti earthquake by sending the USNS Comfort.
When not backing up a military operation treating the wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines it has planned humanitarian missions. The United States Navy made sure that humanitarianism should be a core component. They have over 1,000 beds and 12 operating rooms that has the ability to treat pretty much anything you can think of. The USNS falls under the Geneva Convention for health care. If attacked it is considered a war crime. The Commanding Officer CAPT James Rice says that The United State Navy works “hand in hand and arm in arm”with humanitarian groups like Operation Smile, Project Hope, and International Reflief.
The video below is very interesting and if you have sometime do watch it and just notice the great things that the US Navy does for people home and abroad.
I found myself agreeing with most of you wrote in this entry. To expound upon the "humanitarian alibi" concept on behalf of commercial "humanitarian" efforts, it is often more nefarious than the average public understands.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the continent of Africa is the world's main source for silica, a mineral necessary for the production of circuitry and microchips that most minor and major appliances now require. The companies that capitalize on this mineral mining pay the lowest wages with worst working conditions for local laborers. Additionally, these same companies do not practice the same mining techniques with the same environmentally rigorous standards most developed nations enjoy. This leaves local populations as not only slaves to these companies but also the beneficiaries of environmental degradation and subsequent fallout.
And if it is possible, it does become even worse. as we discussed in class, these companies have been known to fund "charitable organizations" that ship our old and used computer equipment back to these same companies where they then create landfills of the worst kind of e-waste. Meanwhile, this company gets to write off the whole endeavor in the form a tax credit and create a false sense of benevolence for shareholders and the public alike.
The entire thing is a vicious circle. And what is worse, we know this happens everyday around the world and still toss our cell phones, for example, every two years for something more exciting, not because the phone was necessarily broken, but because we can and without consequence.
We can complain about motives and false efforts, but we can also hold these companies accountable. Of course, we can also exhibit more frugality with the resources that create our technology.
I share your cynicism with the whole system, however, there's varying degrees of responsibility all around. This is not to say that US military is our best answer to these problems, it is fraught with its own bureaucracies, corruptions, redundancies, and problems, although they are extremely efficient of getting things from point A to point B.
If our current military efforts weren't so beholden to outside contractors (more commercial "humanitarians" in disguise), I may be inclined to agree with you. -Kathleen
Evan, I both agree and also disagree with you introduction statement. After learning about the four different humanitarian groups and their motives and functions, I would say that we do have a humanitarian society; however I only believe that the first group (Dunantist) has the proper motives for relief for war and natural disasters. If it were up to me I would merge all of the groups under the first group to provide the right kind of help that people need. The thing I like the most about the Dunantist group is that they live to serve and are not worried about what they get in return. They are just happy to help without any material repayment. I really respect people that can give without receiving anything in return; without people like them in the world the humanitarian society would not exist.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I found it to be a good point that you made about the shoe companies donating orange shoes that looked terrible that were not selling. I remember this point in class and I thought it was very in humanitarian of them to give away useless junk that instead of solving the problem made the problem even worse. These people could not use all of the useless junk that they were sent for “relief, so instead they were charged with cleaning up even more junk on top of trying to mend their broken homes and lives. I believe that people need to start thinking about others rather than themselves or else the humanitarian way of life will cease to exist.
I also thought that the Navy video that you added at the end of your blog post was quite interesting and good touch. Overall, I would say that this was a solid analytic post Evan and to keep up the good work. You really made me understand a few of the concepts from the last lecture better.
Evan, I definitely agree with you when you said, “classifying the different types is the first problem in humanitarian efforts.” Personally, I believe that out of the four types of humanitarian effort groups, only one group can be considered to be truly humanitarian and not slanted in some way or another. A true humanitarian effort group or organization is one that alleviates human suffering wherever it may be found, does not takes sides in any conflict or help one side win over the other, gives aid based on need alone, and is INDEPENDENT FROM BENEFACTORS AND INSTITUTIONAL DONORS! So many “humanitarian” organizations today are not exactly humanitarian at all; they’re organizations that are doing humanitarian efforts but are not humanitarian in nature.
ReplyDeleteA prime example of this can be seen in a video posted on Jesse DelRosso’s blog on Humanitarianism, which can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjZL80ic2Es. In this video, released in 2001, Usama Bin Laden launched a humanitarian relief body to help Pakistan’s citizens dealing with recent flooding. This behavior can be considered humanitarian because of the actions taken by the people within Al-Qaeda, not because of who they are. However, if you do take into consideration who they are, what their motives are for giving aid, any rational individuals perceptions of the situation would change. Bin Laden is an internationally known, and now dead, terrorist whose orders carried out by his followers killed thousands of people. What could he have to gain by giving humanitarian aid to people in Pakistan? Good status with the locals in order to sway their beliefs about the organization that he stands for. If people are more likely to view Al-Qaeda as an organization that helps locals who are in need, then they are more likely to join that organization. Bin Laden’s “humanitarian” actions directed at creating a relief network to help with the summer flooding in Pakistan don’t make him a humanitarian. Similarly, the organizations who give humanitarian aid that also have strings attached, aren’t humanitarian organizations.