Humanitarianism and Security - Essay Example

Block 4: Humanitarianism and Security 7. Why have development and humanitarianism conventionally been seen as separate from each other? Is such a distinction still viable and does it remain desirable? By (Author) Name of the Class (Course) Professor (Tutor) Name of the School (University) City Date Humanitarianism as a doctrine as been around our societies for many decades now. Many debates have been centered on it concerning the role it plays in politics and governing of a country? In a recent past, too, various questions have been asked on why development and humanitarianism have conventionally been seen as separate from each other. Furthermore, the debate over how to enhance the effectiveness of humanitarian assistance and development aid and lower their potentially adverse impacts is ongoing and intense. Initiatives across the globe attempt to promote discourse on this very subject and to question the role that humanitarian agencies play in most of the conflicts (Paris, 2010 P., 33). Humanitarian aid and development aids are never straightforward, and they mask several political failures. Ultimately, moreover, they play a crucial function in saving lives, and a function, which can be consistently improved as lessons, are learned and adopted. Humanitarianism as a doctrine ought to be mans duty to strive to promote the welfare of fellow mankind. Historically the doctrine that mankind can achieve perfection through his resources. The link between security and development has also been an issue of concern to many. Specific issue of concern has been the role the international communities have in providing security for individuals in the developing world. In its most general terms, humanitarianism is an ethic of kindness, sympathy extended universally and benevolence to all human. Humanitarianism has always been an evolving idea traditionally, but the universality is a common element in its obvious evolution. These have been ideas held by civil rights and governments of various countries (Paris, 2010 P., 45). Humanitarianism can also be termed as the acceptance of every human for plainly just being another human; this can be portrayed by ignoring and putting an end to biased social views, prejudice in the process, if shown individually as a practice mindset. In reality, it can agree that humanitarianism is a matter doctrine in paper. In many people’s views, humanitarianism is nothing more or less a revolution in the ethics of care (Stewart et al p., 10). For a fact, this revolution, like many revolutions, was developed through a collaboration of transcendental visions, power, politics and it has generated a group of successes and excesses. Humanitarianism operates in the best historical of emancipator ethics. It aspires to keep people alive, to expand their opportunities, and to provide them much control over their fates. It does that through various interventions, all defended on the basis that they improve the welfare and health of others who are too powerless and weak to help themselves. A variety of private and public actors contributes to humanitarian action, among them states, commercial outfits, religious bodies, philanthropies and various individuals (Mac Ginty, Roger and Oliver Richmond. 2013 P., 71).. Issues of humanitarian actions and responsibility Humanitarian and development is a wide subject that most often than not elicit various reaction especially in applicability. Concerns have been levelled in the past about preservation of human dignity. For instance, various international laws have been drafted to address these issues. These laws provide guidance on the limits an individual or government can operate and constraints. Humanitarian organizations on their part are not at liberty or do not inherit the responsibilities that other groups have failed to uphold, but the very require for their intervention and the consequences of their aid depend upon the extent to which higher-order responsibilities have not been met. Humanitarian agencies cannot be held obliged, for instance, for the militarization of the South Sudan refugee camps since it was neither their role nor within their capability to ensure the civilian feature of the camp. Moreover, it is common knowledge that whatever the context of an aid, and whatever the specific mix of humanitarian players involved, there is expected to be need for coordination in order to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the humanitarian ability to meet the needs of affected groups throughout the world (Stewart et al p., 20). Coordination is thus a way of creating an enabling environment where groups deemed independent can collaborate to ensure quality of their intervention and enhance the impact and scope of their actions. International humanitarian law and regulations imposes limits on acceptable behaviour during war; human rights regulations sets the minimum required standards to which civilians are entitled by virtue of their partisanship in humanity; and humanitarian action seeks out to restore some of those liberties when they are deprived of them by any scenarios or circumstance. Thus, the "duty", to give humanitarian aids, occurs only once the obligations to avoid depriving and to secure from deprivation have failed to be conducted. As such it is the main duty of the governments to provide softly and the general welfare of its people this is clearly upheld in the Geneva Convention. Despite all these initiatives, it is sad that the concept applicability is rarely upheld particularly in developing countries (Mac Ginty, Roger and Oliver Richmond. 2013 P., 111). It is worth stating that the idea of humanitarian responsibility is very complex with various connotations that need to be interpreted well and aligned with the expectations of both the plays. The divergent issues on the role of humanitarian action have obvious consequences for the probability of promoting an ethical framework that is acceptable to all aid organizations. Finally under this concept of humanitarian and responsibility, it is worth noting that the coordination of humanitarian actors is not the sole responsibility of one body. Though governments and the United Nations are expected to lead coordination efforts, every group has an obligation to coordinate with others groups in the sharing of information and to add into to disaster-wide priorities. This is the most essential as timeliness depend on other various factors such as location and nature among others(Stewart et al p., 3). Politics and Humanitarianism Humanitarian aids have always been a highly political activity. It has occasionally influenced the political economy of recipient nations and has always been influenced by the political considerations of donor governments. Moreover, many critics claim that humanitarian assistance and politics in a nation are inseparable. Politics has always carried the day. Despite the assertions and practices of humanitarian bodies seeking to ensure that their activities confer no military benefits and are driven primarily on the basis of need of those they serve, the Humanitarian doctrine of neutrality and impartiality are continuously under constant assault. Unadorned differences between the amount and kind of humanitarian assistance provided to various nations facing acute crises show that humanitarian assistance has never been disbursed fully on the basis of people’s need. Issues of neutrality and impartiality came to question years ago during the Bosnian war, and this leveled even much debate. It was something many found morally reprehensible during the war particularly when people knew that some of those being given the ‘indirect’ redistribution were individuals who were fuelling some of the worst crimes during the war such as rape camps, mass murder, and ethnic cleansing. Nonetheless, the relationship existing between humanitarian assistance and politics is slowly changing. In reality, with proper policies and regulatory laws humanitarian aid should become an integral part of donors’ broad strategy to decrease violence, transform conflicts and set the stage for ideal liberal development. This changing role of humanitarian assistance is frequently called the ‘new humanitarianism. It is an admirable concept that contemporary society have come to admire. There exists a ‘new humanitarianism’ for a new century. ‘New humanitarianism’ is ‘principled, ‘human rights focused and always politically sensitive. ‘New humanitarianism’ marks a break from the historical governance of humanitarian programs. It is a new concept in humanitarians and advocates for the system claims it can only get better with time. New humanitarians reject the political naivety historically witnessed, assess the long-term political effects of relief and are prepared to see humanitarian assistance used as an instrument to achieve political goals and universal human rights. ‘New humanitarianism’ is a product of the failed programs and strategies of humanitarianism in the 20th century and the advocates for the system have supported the new system to correct these historical errors. ‘New humanitarianism’ has characterized international responses to several recent conflicts, including in Serbia, Sierra Leone, and Afghanistan. Humanitarianism, institutional development and security Since the Cold War ended, it has been a debate to assert that peace and development of a nation are intimately linked and that the international groups such as UN are required to address the twin imperatives for the countries’ security and development through well-integrated programs and policies. Portraying its early definition of “post-conflict reconstruction,” the concept of “peacebuilding” has widen its scope in the 1990s to include the overlapping agendas for nation’s peace and development in clear support of conflict prevention, management and post-conflict reconstruction. Over the past few years, and particularly since the 9/11 attacks in the United States, international development has become more or less linked with security issues in both the developing world and developed nations. Likewise, some scholars and development practitioners view this as a positive development: accepting that one of the primary causes of deprivation and poverty in the world is conflict and insecurity. This has been encompassed by a widening of the application of security from physical safety to ‘human being security’. However, some critics see the merging of development of a country and security as a sabotage of the development schema to the political interests of powerful Western countries. These critics claim that the widening definition of security is part of the challenge, not the solution. For a fact, the link between humanitarianism and development is of great importance. There have been rising debates. There was a notion that humanitarian assistance is separate from the development work. For years, donor organizations have launched different agencies to implement their long-term development needs, such as education and health. Consequently, each of the aid and development workers finally develops their system and control of actions in these nations. A clear distinction can be made between humanitarian and development by institutions that give humanitarian assistance and institutions that concentrate on capacity building and long-term development. These organizations are varied when related to precedence and society building. When institutions are involved in humanitarian assistance they are under pressure when it is related to time and give less consideration to the development plans. Also, the heredity details, which lead to conflict, are less concerning. In various conditions, agencies are challenged and try to remain neutral to ensure accessibility to those distressed by war. These agencies are not ready to deal with long developmental planning projects (Gasper, 2005 P., 44). Humanitarians’ assistance agencies priorities are to provide basic needs of water, food, shelter and health. The experience of humanitarian agencies is focused on technical,, logistical and organizational skills. The risks of humanitarian agencies revolve around weakening the build -up of state actions and the building of the organization. As for development approaches, it is a reality that when planning development projects for a normal nation it is difficult, so what would be the situation if it plans long term development for a country facing conflicts. The developmental organizations goals are creating structures that endorse long growth that aims to achieve sustainability and stability on the social level. Their experiences are building economical, technical, agricultural organizations. The development organization blind spots are security to its actions and the high probability of aid in increasing war. Finally, the risk, they face, is the development of competed resources in potential conflicts. Security, development, and institutional change In broader context, despite the fact that relationship existing between development and security is not straightforward, it is more acknowledged that, if they are to thrive in meeting their goals, international humanitarian in fragile nations must always understand and respond to the prevailing security situation in different settings. In recognition of this, I can recommend that international humanitarian agencies such as, the United Nations, USAID and the European Community among others must be involved in security programming such security sector reform and attempts to improve justice chances for poor and vulnerable societies globally in a range of social and political environments. In practice, they must attempt balance correctly sequencing of security and development approaches. Indeed, it is important to understand that improved security is critical in providing space to build sustainable institutions (Gasper, 2005 P., 15). Delays in development progress, as seen in many countries, have led to frustration among the population, specifically young individuals in a country. As a conclusion, humanitarian action they play a crucial function in saving lives across the globe. Humanitarianism as a doctrine ought to be mans duty to strive to promote the welfare of fellow mankind. In practicality, this has not been the case in many countries. Many academicians and other professional have questioned whether development and humanitarianism conventionally related (Chander, 2012 p., 34). They have critic the ever increasingly involvement of government in humanitarian assistance and their motives. Humanitarian aid has been seen to be used as a political tool. However in recent years there has been hope in ‘new humanitarianism’. There exist a ‘new humanitarianism’ for the new century. ‘New humanitarianism’ is ‘principled, ‘human rights focused and always politically sensitive. ‘New humanitarianism’ marks a break from the historical governance of humanitarian programs. It is a new concept in humanitarians and advocates for the system claims it can only get better with time. References Chander, D. 2012 ‘Resilience and Human Security: The Post-interventionist paradigm’, Security Dialogue, 43 (3), 213-229. Duffield, Mark. 2010. ‘The liberal way of development and the development—security impasse: Exploring the global life-chance divide.’ Security Dialogue, 41(1), pp. 53-76; http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0967010609357042 Duffield, Mark. 2001. Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security, London: Zed Books. Gasper, Des. 2005. ‘Securing Humanity: Situating ‘Human Security’ as Concept and Discourse.’ Journal of Human Development 6(2), pp. 221-245; http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649880500120558 Mac Ginty, Roger and Oliver Richmond. 2013. The Local Turn in Peace Building: a critical agenda for peace , Third World Quarterly 34 (5), 763-783Global Society 21(4), pp. 491-497; http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600820701562710 Paris, R. 2010 ‘Saving Liberal Peacebuilding’, Review of International Studies, 36 (2), 337-365 (see also this reply by Cooper et a 2011 ‘The end of history and the last liberal peacebuilder’, Review of International Studies, 37 (4), 1995-2007. Stewart, Frances and Graham K. Brown .2007, “Motivations for conflict: Groups and individuals.” In Chester Crocker, Fen Hampson and Pamela Aall, eds, Leashing the Dogs of War: Conflict Management in a Divided World, Washington: United States Institute of Peace. Read More