Role of NGOs and Humanitarian Organizations in Peace Building - Essay Example

Role of NGOs and Humanitarian Organizations in Peace Building: The ICRC and Human Rights Groups in the Israel-Lebanon Conflict and in Ethnic Conflicts in Sri Lanka From the time when United Nations (UN) intervention and related kinds of international peacekeeping in conflict regions assumed a new role at the end of the Cold War, humanitarian organizations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have also became known as an important component of the processes of peacekeeping and peace building missions (Carey & Richmond, 2003, 40-41). These tasks are aimed to contribute to the development of democratic, neoliberal bodies in conflict regions, but they also create a number of concerns about the nature of NGO purposes, roles, and relationship with states, militaries and other organizations (Anderson, 1999, 37-38). Usually, NGOs or the development community has struggled to stay away from conflict situations. Concentrating instead on their development and humanitarian operations, aid groups have regarded themselves and their subsidies to be impartial and nonpartisan (Church, 2004, 23-24). Current scholarships on Somalia and Rwanda, though, have seriously challenged this view (Carey & Richmond, 2003,136). For instance, Peter Uvin (1998, 3) has studied the relationship of development assistance with the forces and mechanisms that resulted in the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. “In countries like Rwanda,” he states in Aiding Violence: The Development Enterprise in Rwanda, “where development aid provides a large share of the financial and moral resources of government and civil society, development aid cannot help but play a crucial role in shaping the process that lead to violence” (Uvin, 1998, 3). Another author, Michael Marin, has illustrated a much more threatening picture in the case of humanitarian intervention in Somalia all through the 1980s, concluding that development and humanitarian aid is mainly useless and unintentionally detrimental, and that it circulates a system of hostility, corruption, and dependency (Cutter, 2001, 210). Hence, if humanitarian intervention has the capability of inflicting even more suffering on the people and communities already exposed to hostilities, as these authors seem to claim, then should we dispose of development aid and humanitarian intervention altogether? In Mary Anderson’s perceptive and sensible book Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace-or War, she retorts: “It is a moral fallacy to conclude that because aid can do harm, the decision not to give aid would not do harm” (Anderson, 1999, 23). A collaborative endeavor of international donor agencies, United Nations organizations, NGOs, and other delegates of the international development and humanitarian community, Do No Harm examines the experiences of the people struggling to provide development aid and humanitarian assistance in conflict regions in order to enhance intervention (Cutter, 2001, 210).Therefore, Anderson’s book tries to answer a particular question (Cutter, 2001, 210): How can humanitarian intervention and development aid be provided in conflict conditions in ways that encourage conflict resolution, instead of aggravation of the conflict? The objective of this paper is to demonstrate how humanitarian organizations and human rights groups could assume major roles in peacekeeping and peace building in conflict situations. In order to explicate this argument the role of humanitarian interventions in the mitigation and resolution of conflicts in two of the cases worldwide, specifically the Israel-Lebanon conflict and Sri Lankan ethnic conflict, will be examined. Moreover, the difference in the peace-building strategy of humanitarian organizations (ICRC) and human rights groups (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch) in armed conflict situations will be discussed. The Role of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in the Conflict Resolution between Israel and Lebanon The Lebanon War in 2006 or also referred to as the Israel-Hezbollah War was a military conflict in northern Israel and South Lebanon. The conflict started when Hezbollah activists dropped rockets at border towns in Israel as a distraction for an anti-tank missile assault on armored vehicles guarding the Israeli side (Schulze, 2008, 16). The major factions were the Israeli military and the Hezbollah paramilitary forces. The hostilities commenced on the 12th of July 2006, and persisted until a ceasefire negotiated by the United Nations was implemented on the 14th of August of the same year, though it officially ended almost one month after the ceasefire when Israel removed its naval defense of Lebanon (Tucker, 2008, 615). The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), following Israel’s freeing of five Lebanese citizens in return for the corpses of two Israeli combatants, talks about its distinct role as an impartial coordinator of the nonviolent handover (Goldstein & Docherty, 2007, 22). ICRC has persistently requested Israel and Hezbollah, involved in sporadic spells of violent conflicts for more than two decades, to consider the civilians’ humanitarian needs. Particularly, the humanitarian agency has reported (Goldstein & Docherty, 2007, 23), “Since the beginning of the military operations, the ICRC has reminded the parties—publicly and through its dialogue with them—of the object to distinguish between civilians and civilian objects on one hand, and military objectives on the other” (Kellenberger, 2008, 2). The transfer procedure between Lebanon and Israel culminated on the 16th of July 2006, when the waiting ten trailers and trucks of ICRC containing more than a hundred caskets of human corpses passed through Israel to Lebanon and were surrendered to Hezbollah delegates (United Nations, 2008, 298). The senior deputy head of operations of ICRC for North Africa and Middle East, Eric Marclay, gives information on the handover and explains the role of ICRC as an impartial mediator between Israel and Lebanon to aid in the handover of released captives and human corpses (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2008, para 5). The ICRC constantly sustains an open discussion with all fighting parties with the intention of mitigating the suffering and misery of civilians whose lives have been destroyed by armed hostilities (Goldstein & Docherty, 2007, 23). Here, the main priority of ICRC is to help put an end to the agony and grief of those whose loved ones went missing. Since there is no immediate contact between Hezbollah and Israel the ICRC offered its assistance the moment it heard of an accord being discussed between the parties (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2008, para 15). ICRC informed both parties that it was geared up to act as an impartial mediator, if asked to do so. The Hezbollah and Israeli officials asked the ICRC to assist in the handing over of several captives as well as the human corpses of more or less 200 individuals killed during hostilities over the recent decades (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2008, para 13). Given the situations, the mission would definitely be impossible without the intervention of an intermediary. Aside from the fact that ICRC has a directive to act as impartial go-between, the ICRC is also regarded as a critical and trustworthy actor in this kind of circumstances (Human Rights Watch, 2007, 23). Most notably, it has the confidence and trust of both sides, which places it in a position to assist in guaranteeing the success of the conflict resolution (Human Rights Watch, 2007, 23). On the other hand, human rights groups involved in the Israel-Hezbollah conflict assumed a different role from that of the ICRC which played as a neutral mediator between the two warring states. Amnesty International, UN Human Rights Envoy and Human Rights Watch declared that human rights violations were committed by Israel and Lebanon. Amnesty International proclaimed that Hezbollah leaders have gravely violated international humanitarian law by targeting Northern Israel’s civilian population (Amnesty International, 2006, 1). Human Rights Watch supported this declaration by stating that attacking civilian locations haphazardly is a serious infringement of international humanitarian law and can amount to crimes against humanity (Human Rights Watch, 2006, 1). As demonstrated by the role of the ICRC in the conflict resolution between Israel and Lebanon, the relevance of international humanitarian rule and the associated assistance to victims is evident when an armed conflict is raging between states (Church, 2004, 102). However nowadays, humanitarian aid linked to an armed conflict may be indirectly linked to that conflict alone and perhaps provided by a number of groups, each of which possibly adhering to a different directive (i.e. of reconstruction, of development, of relief) and making use of different strategies (Waldman, 2003, 33); for instance, to adhere to neutrality or not (Carey & Richmond, 2003, 57), as in the case of human rights groups. Therefore, humanitarian missions may include not just the humanitarian mission as such but may also include military and political action by concerned regimes (Waldman, 2003, 34). While humanitarian missions can be impartial, political and military action is usually not, irrespective of its humanitarian intentions. At the same time, it is a fact that all actions within a conflict zone have political consequences whether they are deliberate or not (Bar-Siman-Tov, 2004, 33). This is the case for the neutral traditional ICRC peace building strategies that affects final political results by ‘freezing’ a specific conflict condition (Carey & Richmond, 2003, 58). This ambiguity inherent in the notion of neutrality gives a flexible cover under which NGOs and other humanitarian groups have been able to furnish relief and aid (Carey & Richmond, 2003, 58). The ICRC has used the concept of neutrality in its most rigid sense: giving assistance only after obtaining permission from all sides, and not condemning international humanitarian law and human rights violations apart from severe instances and only when public exposure was viewed as the only way to safeguard victims against any more abuses (Henckaerts, Doswald-Beck, Alvermann, Dormann & Rolle, 2005, 496). In contrast to the ICRC, the involved human rights group blatantly revealed and condemned the human rights violation of Israel and Lebanon, and instigated their peace-building strategies by demanding an arms ban on the two rival states until measures are put into effect to guarantee their compliance to international humanitarian law and human rights law (RTE News, 2007, para 2). In the case of ICRC, to take on a different function, as that of human rights groups, is believed to endanger its primary function which is to provide relief and assistance to victims of conflict. The most important quality of ICRC is recognition by all warring parties while giving out some temporary stability and relief during negotiations for more enduring solutions (Henckaerts et al., 2005, 497). This intervening function can provide stability in movements between pre- and post-conflict scenarios through collaborating with the other constituents of the Red Cross Movement (Carey & Richmond, 2003, 58). The Role of Human Rights Groups in Conflict Resolution between Ethnic Groups in Sri Lanka Recently, ethnic violence in the Indian subcontinent has become even more prevalent. From the conflict between the Pathan and Bihari in Pakistan to the anti-reservation protest in Gujerat, the anti-Sikh disturbances in New Delhi, and the conflict between Sinhala and Tamil in Sri Lanka, racial aggression has destroyed property and human life (Rotberg, 1996, 41-43). Rivalry for economic opportunities and inadequate resources has exacerbated hostilities emerging from the sharp divisions of race, language, religion, and caste (Rotberg, 1996, 71-72). Weak political institutions have fallen short in adequately meeting the needs for resource and power sharing by marginalized religious and ethnic groups. Policies to promote national unity have been initiated to the detriment of the cultural and linguistic customs of minority groups, generating further conflicts among them (Rotberg, 1999, 43). Human rights groups have been vigorous in revealing human rights violations, promoting conflict resolution, investigating minority injustices, and providing humanitarian aid (Bar-Siman-Tov, 2004, 33-34). The intervention of Amnesty International has been mostly important in providing a detailed assessment of security legislation and emergency laws, and in describing occasions of disappearances, torture, extrajudicial killings, and subjective detentions (Church, 2004, 5-10). Likewise, the International Commission of Jurists, Asia Watch, and Lawasia have examined various features of the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict and have released accounts which have drawn the attention of the world (Human Rights Watch, 1991, 469-470). These reports have been helpful to the conflict resolution between warring ethnic groups (Rotberg, 1999, 37). The documentation of human rights violations was a vital mission of human rights organizations in response to the effects of ethnic conflict (Garrett, 1999, 119). The comprehensiveness of human rights report in Sri Lanka was exceptionally high, specifically in the regions affected by the ethnic conflict (Rotberg, 1999, 68-69). Human rights groups have attempted to ascertain the objectivity and truthfulness of their human rights accounts because it is their means to mitigate and resolve ethnic conflicts (Rotberg, 1999, 69-70). The reports have also assisted the truth commissions or fact-finding undertakings conducted from regularly by international NGOs such as the International Commission of Jurists and Amnesty International (Human Rights Watch, 1991, 269). On the other hand, continuing its neutral stance, the ICRC provided humanitarian support to civilians with the approval of the Sri Lankan government (ICRC, 2010, para 1). The ICRC cautioned both sides to the conflict of their duties to abide by international humanitarian law, stressing that IHL obliged all parties to avoid involving and harming the civilian population, to permit them to receive assistance and to allow humanitarian organizations to operate safely (ICRC, 2010, para 1). As manifested in the role of NGOs and humanitarian organizations in conflict resolution between warring ethnic groups in Sri Lanka, the relationship between peace and aid attempts can be attained in two possible, equally matching, ways (Carey & Richmond, 2003, 40). Peace building can be viewed as the last stage of a ‘hand-over-process’ (Carey & Richmond, 2003, 40) that starts with relief and assistance, results in rehabilitation and development attempts, and culminates with the building of stable peace. Furthermore, peace building in this case can be considered as an integrated strategy that obliges any actor, involving NGOs, to incorporate peace building attempts at every phase of commitment (Church, 2004, 98-99). Humanitarian organizations, such as the ICRC, and human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, International Commission of Jurists, Asia Watch have crossed barriers in order to fulfill a peace building role, either overtly or covertly. Their purposes were compatible with the objectives pursued in the process of peace building (Bar-Siman-Tov, 2004, 220). These humanitarian organizations and human rights groups were also eager to collaborate with political actors for the benefit of a common objective. And lastly, their peace building intervention had the capability of analyzing the framework in which their peace building attempts were to take place (Bar-Siman-Tov, 2004, 17). This constructive peace was attained by addressing the core roots of a conflict, specifically, political repression, social injustice, and economic depression (Carey & Richmond, 2003, 42-44). Hence, their peace building instruments involve the granting of equal access to needed commodities, economic rehabilitation, and the eradication of dominance (Carey & Richmond, 2003, 43). Apparently, peace building to a particular extent implies democratization, because democracy “not only opens the space for nonviolent political competition, but also helps to sustain the balanced distribution of power that underpins the peace process” (Carey & Richmond, 2004, 191). Humanitarian interventions have to embrace these objectives if it is to serve a vital peace building function (Garrett, 1999, 119). Human rights groups in the Israel-Lebanon conflict were eager to embark on long-term programs that address the core causes of hostilities by aiming at administrative reforms (Gilbert, 2008, 125-127). As in the case of ethnic conflicts in Sri Lanka, NGOs there would not be able to attain democratization without considering both governance concerns and the requirements of civil society (Rotberg, 1999, 63-64). Hence, peace building in the cases of Israel-Lebanon conflict and Sri Lankan ethnic conflicts is basically a political attempt, and must not be confused with longer-term development projects. As a result, the ICRC and human rights groups in the two cases were aware of the political repercussions of the peace building attempts generally and, particularly, to their certain influence in this respect. The last barrier that aid agencies in the two cases had crossed as peace building interventionists was derived from the nature of peace building as an inclusive learning practice (Church, 2004, 193). Actors engaged in peace building attempts have to mold their involvement in accordance to the particular context, because “there are no set patterns or models applicable to every conflict” (Carey & Richmond, 2003, 43). Therefore, humanitarian organizations and human rights groups involved in peace building efforts “should be aware of socio-economic disparities and gender-related issues; understand the prevailing disparities and security environment; and be able to analyze and build upon local strengths and coping mechanisms” (Carey & Richmond, 2003, 43). In other words, without determining the roots and mechanisms of a conflict it is not possible to herald peace. NGOs are accomplishing more and more peace building missions than are formal governmental organizations. As manifested in the two cases, these humanitarian agencies have a continuing presence in several regions of the world which are badly affected by destructive conflicts and are in exceptional position to take part in a broad array of peace building missions. Aside from providing relief and aid, they also are exceptionally positioned to take part in skill-building and empowerment among the civil society and to encourage the local population to cooperate with the antagonist in various collaborative tasks. As is factual with authorized governmental peace building attempts, the objective of NGO attempts is often conflict mitigation and/or resolution, not only between involved parties, but among average people. It should be evident from the above discussion that, while humanitarian organizations cannot accomplish everything that is needed to make stable peace happen in the advent of an internal and external conflict, they can accomplish a great deal to make the realization of the objective easy. In suppressing the hostilities and laying the basis for reconstructing the state, humanitarian organizations are capable of initiating an opening for peace that domestic parties usually cannot create by themselves. With regard to this, NGOs or humanitarian interventions may not furnish adequate situations for peace, but they usually are vital ones. If these required situations are not created, it is significantly doubtful that a state will be reconstructed, that is able to wield its power over its sphere of influence and providing security and protection to its population, that is capable of successfully resolving conflicts through its organizations and advance its citizens’ general welfare, and that is capable of functioning as a political identity founded on recognized authority. If this kind of state is not reconstructed, sustainable peace, particularly that reinforced by democracy, perhaps several years arriving, if it is to arrive at all. Bibliography:- Amnesty International. (2006). Israel/Lebanon Under Fire: Hizbullah's attacks on northern Israel. http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde020252006. Anderson, M. (1999). Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace- or War. UK: Lynne Rienner Pub. Bar-Siman-Tov, Y. (Ed.). (2004). From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carey, H.F. & Richmond, O.P. (eds). (2003). Mitigating Conflict: The Role of NGOs. London: Frank Cass. Church, C. (2004). NGOs and the Table: Strategies for Influencing Policy in Areas of Conflict. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Cole, J. (2009). Engaging the Muslim World. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Cutter, A. G. (2001). Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace-- or War. Ethics and International Affairs , 210+. Garrett, S. (1999). Doing Good and Doing Well: An Examination of Humanitarian Intervention. Westport, CT: Praeger. Gilbert, M. (2008). The Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. New York: Routledge. Goldstein, E. & Docherty, B.L. (2007). Civilians Under Assault: Hezbollah's Rocket Attacks on Israel in the 2006. Human Rights Watch , 22-26. Henckaerts, J.M., Doswald-Beck, L., Alvermann, C., Dormann, K. & Rolle, B. (2005). Customary International Humanitarian Law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Human Rights Watch Staff. (1991). Human Rights Watch World Report. Human Rights Watch . Human Rights Watch. (2006). Israel/Lebanon: Hezbollah must end attacks on civilians. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/05/lebano13921.htm . International Committee of the Red Cross. (2008). The NGO Behind the Israel-Lebanon Swap. OneWorld.net , http://us.oneworld.net/article/the-third-party-tells-its-story. ICRC. (2010). The ICRC in Sri Lanka. http://www.icrc.org/web/ENG/siteENG0.nsf/htmlall/sri_lanka. Kellenberger, J. (2008). Current challenges faced by the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Humanitarian Law. New York: ICRC. Ohanyan, A. (2008). NGOs, IGOs, and the Network Mechanisms of Post-Conflict Global Governance in Microfinance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Rotberg, R. (Ed.). (1999). Creating Peace in Sri Lanka: Civil War and Reconciliation. New York: Brookings Institution Press. Rotberg, R. (Ed.). (1996). Vigilance and Vengeance: NGOs Preventing Ethnic Conflict in Divided Societies. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. RTE News. (2007). Israel & Lebanon failed to act-- rights groups. http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0712/lebanon.html. Schulze, K. (2008). The Arab-Israeli Conflict. UK: Longman. Tucker, S.C. & Roberts, P.M. (2008). The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Political, Social and Military History. Oxford, UK: ABC-CLIO. United Nations. (2008). United Nations Documents Index, July-September 2006. Dag Hammarskjold Library United Nations . Uvin, P. (1998). Aiding Violence: The Development Enterprise in Rwanda. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. Waldman, A. (2003). Arbitrating Armed Conflict: Decisions of the Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group. New York: JurisNet LLC. Read More