The Provision of Aid by Humanitarian Organization in the Sri Lanka Conflict - Research Paper Example

Humanitarian Aid, Conflict and Politics The Humanitarian Faction: The Politicization and Targeting of Aid Organizations in War Zones. With civilians working as both strategic targets and “militarized” actors targets in the modern-day conflicts, the issue of humanitarian organizations providing relief services in war-torn areas has increasingly been politicized. Factions targeting the civilians in war torn regions see any type of aid to civilians as “opponents” supporting the enemy. The factions view the provision of assistance and resource to the civilians as materially supporting hence supporting one side involved in the conflict. This viewpoint goes against humanitarian relief organization’s “provide aid but take no side” credo. Worse, the politicization of relief or aid may cause those representing non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and agencies on the ground to be turned into strategic targets by opposing factions in the conflict. Hostile factions attack representatives of agency, local and international Non-governmental organizations in the field with a view to obtain goods and services and to prevent aid from reaching the targeted civilian population by that faction. Besides, destruction of aid infrastructure and robbery of supplies, NGO and agency representatives may be killed or terrorized in an attempt to dissuade aid providers from continuing to operate in the region and drive out such organizations from operating in the conflict zone. In certain conflict regions, foreigners are automatically targeted. For most war torn areas, staff and local organizations suffer from violence more when it comes to violence targeting humanitarian workers. When examining the precarious roles of humanitarian agencies on the ground in conflict zones, questions emerge specifically about the relationship between humanitarian aid, politics and conflict. This study utilizes the existing research the role of humanitarian aid, politicization of human aid conflict, conflict, and impact of attacks on relief organizations to frame a brief look at the relationship between humanitarian aid, politics and conflict. Policy and power structures may shape the roles of aid and can lead to attacks on NGOs and agencies, while cultural, political, ethnic, and socioeconomic motives and realities can influence both the choice to target and the decision to attack. This study focuses on one case of violent, one involving politically motivated attacks on humanitarian agencies: the Sri Lanka case. The study concludes with a review of selected relevant policy suggestions, which may be important to humanitarian organizations operating on war torn areas. Methodology In this paper, a qualitative research methodology will be employed to find out how politicization of humanitarian aid can influence the conflict and interfere or promote the humanitarian activities of providing and distributing aid in war torn areas. This type of methodology be used to ascertain the interference of politics in the provision of aid by humanitarian organization in the Sri Lanka conflict. A brief history of Sri Lanka conflict will be provided. The case will then be examined with a view to determine whether the humanitarian aid has been politicized, and how if this politicization has had an impact on conflict. The paper will further explore other cases to ascertain whether there is a similar trend across the world. Finally, the paper will provide policy recommendations to these effect. Background Sri Lanka: The Trincomalee Massacre The most recent example of violent attacks on workers of humanitarian organization can be found in Sri Lanka. For years Sri Lanka has been involved in prolonged bloody civil war. The basis of the civil war arises from the history of extreme structural violence and oppression. Both the majority Singhalese ruling elites and the British have discriminated against the Tamil-speaking minority people of Sri Lanka since the end of 19th century. The civil war has been between two key parties: the Hindu Tamil rebel group, Tamil Tigers also known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eulam (LTTE), who are the minority, and the majority Buddhist Singhalese government. Several peace talks have been attempted, and many cease-fires signed, but war still continues till today. It has claimed an estimate of about 65,000 lives for the past 30 years. Currently, research shows that more than one million people are internally displaced because of this conflict. It is indicated that the Tamil diaspora has spread across the world. After the failure of the cease fire that was signed in 2002, the conflict resurged between 2005 and 2006 as the government and Tamil forces intensified their battle for the control of districts and towns. This has resulted in widespread displacement of civilians. It has also lead to a surging number of civilian casualties. In 2006, 17 Tamil-speaking staff belonging to the international NGO Action Center La Faim were executed in Mutter after the town was turned into a Centre for battle between the government troops and LTTE. This attack surprised the world just because it was revealed that the government forces perpetuated the attack. A discredited investigation by the government of Sri Lanka reached an inclusive conclusion. Further assassination of the staff member of ACFIN brought to the forefront the subject of government impunity and NGO security. Humanitarian aid agencies and donors and NGOs were forced to question their collective and individual capacities and to look at their security issues in an effort to avoid tragedies. Hard questions were posed about the wherefore and why of the killings. No satisfactory answers have been provided to this effect. Analysing politicisation Traditionally, humanitarian work becomes politicised when it is supported for reasons other than simply to help those in need: to win hearts and minds, in pursuit of military, security and political goals or to project a benevolent image. Humanitarian work can also become politicised when states consider it their sovereign right to control all activities within their borders during and after a humanitarian crisis. This recent trend is set to continue. By doing so, states do not necessarily aim to manipulate humanitarian activities for their own ends, but there is a real risk of undermining the core humanitarian principle of impartiality: those supporting the political forces in power or those of particular relevance for the next local or national elections may have a better chance of receiving protection and aid. History has shown that this is a risk even when it is a non-state actor insisting on controlling humanitarian work. Sri Lanka is a well-known example from the1990s. Providing and supporting humanitarian aid is on the political agendas of many governments, with no other pretext other than to protect and help those in need. This is certainly true in the case of emergency humanitarian assistance. Support for humanitarian organisations, however, is not always motivated by humanitarian reasons alone. There may be internal political pressure to respond to a humanitarian crisis. Contributing to humanitarian work may be the only form of involvement that a government feels it can permit itself. It may be seen as an opportunity to broaden the scope of an unpopular foreign policy. The motivation may even be to gain a different perspective on a particularly long-standing or complex issue. There is increasing interest in “result-based management” which focuses on input, output and outcome. In certain instances, politicians and donors alike seem to place as much importance on declarations of intent as on the actual work carried out. This can be an indicator that action is not the only thing that matters with humanitarian organisations. From the perspective of a crisis victim, the difference between intention and action is obviously huge. However, from a political perspective, it is not always the case. It may be enough simply to announce that something will be done and that the various political actors are part of the plan. Unfortunately, there is often a huge gap between the amount of money pledged at donor conferences and what is eventually given. Read More