Good motives, bad effects
Neutral, impartial and independent. International aid organizations follow these principles of the Red Cross to relieve onsite suffering worldwide, irrespective of the person or circumstance. But Dutch journalist, Linda Polman, who led UN Peace-Keeping missions in Rwanda and Sierra Leone for many years, believes that the conditions have changed so drastically in many countries that the aid workers can no longer hold to these principles.
In heavily-armed, mostly inner-country conflicts, international non-governmental organizations (INGO) work in "humanitarian spaces, in which the aid for victims takes priority over military and political interests. Victims are victims, regardless of cause and effect," writes Polam in her new book "The Crisis Caravan: What's Wrong with Humanitarian Aid" (published under the title "War Games: The Story of Aid and War in Modern Times" in the UK). But in civil wars, these humanitarian spaces often become themselves a part of the conflict, as sources of supplies or as pull-back spaces for fighters, or even as battlefields.
The practice of aid organizations to supply help in the form of nutrition, housing and medical supplies for every person, regardless of whether they are a refugee or a fighter in need, can often prolong a conflict and its effects on the civilians, according to Polman. She asks "Should INGOs stubbornly persist in their aid, even when the fighting parties within the humanitarian space are using the aid for themselves and against their enemies, thereby extending the conflict? Or should they pull back? Which option is more cruel in the long term?"
NGOs pay "delivery and income taxes" to the perpetrators of suffering.
Polman describes the dilemma of INGOs in crisis regions such as Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan, and how the conflicting parties profit from the aid. Provided in the form of nutrition, medications and housing, the aid is requisitioned by the fighting parties to be sold to hungry people, and the NGOs are required to pay "import taxes" on the goods, as well as "income taxes" for the local workers, which all goes directly into the coffers of the conflicting parties.
Why are aid organizations still unwillingingly supporting conflicting parties, given this data from conflict regions? Besides organizations' main goal of the unreserved alleviation of suffering, Polman points out the economic constraints that INGOs face. Humanitarian operations are expensive and an increasing number of INGOs are competing for donations; those with national and supranational support are the ones to win the local aid contracts. So, for aid organizations, their presence in conflict regions is also a matter of economics. They have to weigh whether they can afford not to be present, and to pull out of the operation, thus allowing other eager INGOs to take their place in the field.
Conflicting parties calculate their cruelty based on worldwide media reaction
INGOs help those who desperately need aid, as well as those who have caused the terrible suffering. This doesn't exactly give warm fuzzies to the onsite aid workers. But one humanitarian crisis quickly gives way to another, and so the "crisis caravan" continues. The conflicting parties use the neutrality of the aid organizations as well as play off the competition of INGOs among each other. Count on the predictable outpouring of worldwide support, they carry out merciless atrocities for their own material gain. This "rational cruelty" of the conflicting parties is one of the most disturbing points in the book.
This book, honestly speaking, was not enjoyable. And not that it's poorly written, rather that from chapter to chapter, one is plunged deeper into a state of stunned despair. Linda Polman unfortunately didn't take out a patent on new solutions for these problems, but that is also due to the complex nature of the issue. Polman doesn't blame only administrations and INGOs. Journalists and people who send their support in the form of donations and tax dollars are also part of the chain of responsibility and should take care to require more transparency and accountability for aid. Perhaps that way, at least, some of the negative outcomes of good intentions can be reigned in...
Guest blog by Michael Tuchen, Finances, betterplace.org
translated by Becky Crook
