email | search about | publications | status reports | people | links

 

Mercy Under Fire–War and Global Humanitarian Community by Larry Minear and Thomas G. Weiss Review by Niall Toibin in Trocaire Development Review, 1995 In recent years, the United Nations and relief agencies have come under increasing criticism for their humanitarian actions in times of crisis. While much of this criticism is deserved and while it is important to look to the past in order to avert failure in future humanitarian intervention, a weakness of much of the criticism is that the critics are academics with little or no practical experience of the difficulties of working on the ground. This book is different. As Jack Donnelly of the University of Denver points out in his blurb: "The authors strike an effective balance between the scholarly demands of even-handed assessment and a passionate devotion to the. difficult but vital work of international humanitarian relief". What is particularly refreshing about this book is that while it poses the problems and chronicles the failures, it also proposes possible solutions and a framework for international action. It is an especially important book for those on the outside, those who are not actively involved in humanitarian relief but who want to understand more about the issues. It makes the inextricable connection between disasters and politics and challenges the international community never to look at humanitarianism in isolation. The first chapter deals comprehensively with the issue of humanitarianism and international law and the important question of sovereignty. While many governments that flaunt international standards frequently justify their freedom to act on the basis of sovereignty, this book points out that even in the UN charter, the conventional view that state sovereignty is absolute and uncontested is not fully supported. Following recent events in Rwanda, Sudan and Nigeria, the question of sovereignty must be seriously addressed by the international community. In Ken Saro-Wiwa's public statement before he was executed, he said: "Any nation which can do to the weak and disadvantaged what the Nigerian nation has done to the Ogoni loses a claim to independence and to freedom from outside influence". This is a powerful statement from a man articulate enough to challenge the notion of sovereignty. There are hundreds of millions of other people around the world–victims of oppression and human rights abuses who are caught up in this web of international law. Another major loophole in the international legal system is that while refugee protection now enjoys firm standing in international humanitarian law, there are no clear-cut legal protections available to internally displaced people. Displaced people do not qualify for comparable legal protection or UN help simply because they have not crossed an international border. This anomaly has caused massive suffering in many countries of Africa–Sudan, Mozambique and Angola. The first chapter also deals sensitively and critically with the issues of the increasing use of the military in humanitarian operations, the role of the Church and indigenous NGOs in providing humanitarian relief and it introduces all the major humanitarian actors, both governmental and private. The highlight of this book is undoubtedly chapter two entitled "Guiding Principles" which presents eight fundamental humanitarian principles which have evolved over time and which are rooted in the experience of several armed conflicts which have led to humanitarian disasters. These principles have come to be known as the Providence Principles and were developed by Larry Minear and Thomas Weiss at Brown University in 1991 following extensive consultation with practitioners. The authors make the point that given the huge diversity of humanitarian actors it is essential to have some guiding principles which should be taken not as moral absolutes but as norms towards which they should strive. The principle of "proportionality" is particularly important. "From a humanitarian stand point, the idea that human life is equally precious everywhere in the world seems self-evident. In practice, however, the world's humanitarian system has great difficulty putting flesh on that proposition". Two striking examples of how proportionality is not observed are presented. The first is the example of the international response to the Gulf Crisis in 1990 while little or no attention was paid to the situation in Liberia. For several months in 1990, the number of persons affected and the degree of their distress was far greater in Liberia than in the Persian Gulf. The second example is that in December 1992, when the Security Council authorised military action in Somalia, an equally serious situation existed in nearby Sudan. Not only was more money spent in Somalia on the alleviation of famine victims but also the stated reason for the intervention in Somalia was the fact that the protection of aid workers was vital, ignoring that at the time the US troops landed in Somalia in December 1992, more humanitarian personnel had been killed in Sudan. The issue of "non-partisanship" is also listed as a basic guiding principle. "If the relief of life threatening suffering is undercut by a disproportionate allocation of limited resources, it is also compromised when political considerations are injected into life saving administrations". In many recent civil wars, the question of access to one side or another has been an issue. In Sudan, for example, many NGOs have been accused by the Sudanese government of partisanship by providing aid only to those in the south of the country, who are mainly Christians. The Muslim northerners on the other hand have received very little aid from the international community although they also have needs. This is a complex issue and the question of partisanship is closely linked to the level of need and to the security situation. More recently, NGOs have been accused of partisanship by providing help to mainly Hutu refugees in Goma while neglecting the needs of those inside Rwanda. This is not a fair criticism as there is no doubt that the level of need in Goma was far greater than that inside Rwanda. Nevertheless, non-partisanship should remain a key guiding principle in any humanitarian action. Another important guiding principle is that of "independence". Independence from political authorities in areas where activities actually take place and from those in donor countries. All humanitarian actors should provide assistance to those most in need and not be influenced by political or religious factors. The end of the Cold War has made it so much easier for NGOs to be political independent. The huge decline in development assistance by the United States and USSR following the end of the Cold War makes it very clear just how politicised aid can be. "Accountability" is also proposed as an important guiding principle. While the authors endorse the desirability of NGOs being accountable to sponsors and beneficiaries for their activities, they concede that accountability can also be an inhibiting factor. They write: "The slavish adherence to strict standards of accountability could be the enemy of creative action." This is particularly true of aid agencies working at the height of a humanitarian crisis where decisions are made quickly and where the need to mobilise resources quickly often overtakes the ~ careful planning which is possible in s relatively stable situations. The authors I go on to suggest that accountability has , been used in the past by donor ,f governments as a means of controlling 0 aid to areas where they prefer not to see e it used. The US government is accused of demanding the most detailed accounting of its resources in the government controlled areas of Nicaragua during the 1980s while adopting a much more relaxed approach for NGOs working in Contra-controlled areas. The question of accountability is particularly relevant in relation to Somalia where during parts of 1992, only about 10 to 20% of relief supplies were reaching famine-affected people due to extortion by clan militia. The authors rightly point out that had normal accountability been required in this situation, many feeding activities would simply not have taken place at all. The prickly question of "transparency" is also raised. While it may seem obvious that humanitarian action should by definition have no secret agenda and nothing to hide, the reality is that covert action is not only common but also necessary in many cases. For example, many NGOs have provided humanitarian assistance in secret to affected communities in southern Sudan while at the same time operating in the north. Their operation in the north would have been jeopardised had their actions in the south been known to the Khartoum government. During the Eritrean struggle for independence, millions of dollars were provided secretly by donor governments through NGOs and the Eritrean Inter-Agency Consortium. Many of these donors had full diplomatic relations with Ethiopia and an embassy in Addis Ababa. The authors put forward "appropriateness" of humanitarian action as another basic guiding principle. They cite examples of inappropriateness in its crudest form as in agencies shipping winter clothing to hurricane victims in the Caribbean, summer clothing to landslide victims in the Himalayas and ready to eat meat containing pork to Muslim populations. However, they develop the theme by concentrating on the crucial area of the appropriateness of the delivery of emergency aid. The failure of the UN and many NGOs in tapping into local capacity and talent while often importing young and technically incompetent expatriates is well documented. Minear and Weiss write: "In the frantic scramble to assist the victims of war, the principle of appropriateness, unobjectionable in theory, often is a casualty. The clear and immediate challenge of saving lives usually wins out over the more ambiguous and longer term task of empowering local people. Agencies whose raison d'etre is emergency relief are especially prone to act without reference to issues of appropriateness". The authors go on to say that relief activities that enlist local populations and institutions are generally more successful that those who do not. Given that this is actually the case, many NGOs have a lot of questions to answer on this issue. Another guiding principle for humanitarian actors is that the "context" in which they work should be fully understood. NGOs often argue that it is not important to understand the problem but rather to provide humanitarian relief regardless of the context. This has become a particularly burning issue following the writing of this book in relation to the refugee camps in Goma and in Tanzania. There are countless other examples where it can be argued that aid has helped to allow conflict situations to continue. Chapter three identifies certain fundamental challenges which humanitarian organisations confront in every war situation. Among the obvious ones of these are negotiating access to the affected populations and mobilising resources. The authors also include the importance of pursuing education and advocacy in the countries that are providing resources. Examples of successful advocacy campaigns in relation to US foreign policy in Central America are cited. The authors go so far as to suggest a scenario where the NGOs of the South should be the main actors in humanitarian and development programmes in their own countries while Northern NGOs should be encouraged to focus their energies on educating their publics and improving the policies of their own government. This "division of labour" should be actively encouraged. Chapter four depicts how major humanitarian actors interact in their effort to respond to the various challenges in war zones. The frequent isolation and under-funding of local NGOs and institutions is again put forward as a major weakness of the system. Inside actors should not be consigned to the roles of "hewers of wood and drawers of water". The final chapter offers recommendations on how to improve the responses of the global humanitarian community to the challenges of dealing with post Cold War conflict. It especially urges more attention to the prevention of major crises. The bulk of Mercy under Fire was written before the Rwanda crisis erupted and it is only in the final chapter that Rwanda is mentioned. However, the authors rightly do not regard that the central propositions of this book have been overtaken by events. Instead, they see that the humanitarian challenges of war and conflict as proposed in Mercy under Fire have been confirmed by Rwanda. It is now time for all humanitarian actors to take these challenges seriously.