Introduction
There are many safety- and security-related problems affecting people in different places, especially in third-world countries, mainly due to the lack of relevant resources. For instance, disease outbreaks, or natural calamities, tend to make it hard for individuals to live a comfortable and fulfilling life. The specified outcome has led to the development of concepts such as humanitarianism. Humanitarianism entails believing that it is one’s duty to help others in a place of need (Ticktin, 2014). An example is a doctor who has dedicated part of his or her time in the year to offering free medical services to those in need. People employed in humanitarian services are guided by the principles of impartiality, humanity, independence, and neutrality.
Humanity shows that human suffering must be handled anywhere it is discovered with specific attention to the most vulnerable. Humanitarian aid is essential since it offers life-saving assistance to those impacted by disasters, conflicts as well as poverty. It is important in reducing the effect of crises on people, bettering their preparedness, and assisting recovery. When choosing to help certain people, it is vital to conduct a study about them. Humanitarian work enables easier interaction with them as it removes the tension that may exist. Anthropology provides information about humans, their language, society, culture, and behaviors. It is documented that it has not been integrated into any humanitarian actions worldwide. This paper aims to discuss anthropology and humanitarianism with a focus on the Sri Lankan humanitarian aid of 2004.
Critical Reflection on Humanitarian Action and Border Politics in Relation to Security
Both political actors and mass media in the past few years effectively addressed sentiments of panic and fear nourished by the notion that a serious crisis of borders has been brewing on an international level. Nations’ inability to manage the flows of refugees and migrants has exacerbated security policies (Ticktin, 2014). The narrative of crisis has not only politically but as well ideologically justified the affirmation of humanitarian borders as zones where aid and rescue practices merge with policing and rejection (Ticktin, 2014). For example, for decades, the migration problem made the dysfunctionality of Europe’s asylum system and its territory architecture explicit (Ticktin, 2014). It made evident the way politics of emergency and rejection increasingly undermine migrants’ safety. Sri Lanka has contributed to the issue, particularly in countries such as France and the United Kingdom.
Diplomacy
The efforts of humanitarians in regard to the politics of borders becomes especially relevant and gains paramount importance hen viewed through the prism of the politics of borders. Indeed, the issue of migration, particularly, illegal and, therefore, uncontrollable one, represents a core concern as a possible threat to the national security (Ticktin, 2014). Therefore, the increase in illegal immigration into the U.S. creates massive potential for an international conflict (Tate, 2020). Herein lies the tremendous role of humanitarians, who strive to represent migrants as a vulnerable population and seek to minimize the threat of conflict by providing the available alternatives and compromises to the existing solutions (Ticktin, 2014). Therefore, the efforts of humanitarians must be recognized as vital for maintaining peace and addressing the needs of migrants seeking opportunities to escape the humanitarian crisis observed in their native state.
The significance of humanitarians’ performance in regard to the politics of borders cannot possibly be underestimated due to the multifold nature of their endeavors. The existing cases as the examples of humanitarians’ contribution to the management of the issues related to border control typically involve advocating for the rights of migrants as the core vulnerable demographics. Multiple cases support the significance of humanitarians’ efforts; for instance, the needs of refugees suffering from the dire effects of displacement can be addressed with the help of humanitarian efforts.
Security
Furthermore, there is an evident connection between the humanitarians’ efforts and the concept of security within the state. Namely, one could posit that the actions undertaken by humanitarians in the course of assisting illegal immigrants lead inevitably to the promotion of statewide security. Specifically, the process of security management should be seen as the balancing of core issues affecting the outcomes of the negotiation. Implying active use of diplomacy, the actions of humanitarians serve to reduce the extent of confrontation between the participants of a specific conflict and, therefore, minimize the threat to the well-being of civilians (Ticktin, 2014). A case of negotiating with terrorists holding innocent people hostage could be seen as a process of seeking to achieve security and reduce the threat experienced by those targeted by criminals. The process s requires a thorough understanding of the nuances of negotiation ethics, as well as mora ad ethical principles of other cultures (Mattingly & Throop, 2018). In the described scenario, the efforts of humanitarians will be driven toward ensuring security by means of using diplomacy and the adjacent strategies.
A less dramatic example of managing security as one of the core focuses of humanitarians, a case of maintaining the performance of a humanitarian organization and ensuring that it is run properly should be mentioned as well. Implying that core goals of sustaining security and keeping the safety levels among civilians high, the specified process suggests performing core controlling tasks that suggest analyzing the available external and internal data, identifying dents in security frameworks, as well as extraneous concerns, and developing the approaches for mitigating the threats in question accordingly. Ticktin (2014) offers the following commentary on the role of humanitarians in managing security: “Thus, security management as part of humanitarian operations requires humanitarian actors to constantly heed a number of fundamental pillars: • Recognize the different security threats. • Assess each threat’s likelihood to actually occur and its impact in case it does. • Determine the organisation’s vulnerability to each threat” (p. 473). Similarly, the politics of borders allows enhancing the extent of security within a state. Specifically, the standards for admitting immigrants into the country serve to mitigate core risks.
Welfare
The specified goal is connected tightly to the idea of welfare, including both global and local one. Indeed, delving further into the nature of humanitarians’ work in regard to addressing the e needs of illegal migrants, one must mention the active promotion of what Ticktin (2014) referred to as “global humanity” (276). Implying that the efforts of humanitarians must center on the pursuit of core values, the main one being the sanctity of human life, the specified construct suggests that the well-being of all participants involved should be taken into account, with the priority being shifted toward addressing the needs of the most vulnerable communities. The promotion of welfare by humanitarians represents one of the core activities, which can be identified and observed in nearly any case of humanitarians being involved in crisis management. For example, the endeavors of humanitarians in the 1960s and 1970s to decolonize the states that had been suffering the impact of the British and American rule can be considered some of the main example of welfare promotion as the direct focus of humanitarianism (Titckin, 2014, p. 276). Therefore, the promotion of humanitarian efforts is closely linked to the concepts of citizens’ welfare and sociopolitical well-being.
However, one could argue that the specified efforts, while being admittedly well-intended, might become misguided at times. For example, striving to liberate the nations suffering from the U.S. and British rule mentioned above represent a failure to embrace the socioeconomic and financial impact of the specified change, creating premises for poverty and an increased range of underserviced areas (Ullah & Kumpoh, 2018). Therefore, the endeavors to promote positive change must be correlated with a thorough analysis of the possible outcomes. Furthermore, in relation to the politics of borders, the outlined change could also be seen as questionable given the emergent issues linked to illegal immigration as a means of maintaining a semblance of economic well-being and embracing every employment option available (Ullah & Kumpoh, 2018). Therefore, multiple factors linked to the politics of borders, the humanitarian action, and the associated socioeconomic, sociopolitical, and sociocultural changes must be taken into account and incorporated into the forecasting framework. Thus, the efficacy of the humanitarian effort will rise exponentially.
The concept of a humanitarian border may appear as a contradiction. Contemporary humanitarianism is usually described as a force that transcends the walled space of national as well as international systems. Nevertheless, it would be improper to draw any simple equation between humanitarian projects and the logic of deterritorialization. Whereas humanitarian programs might emphasize particular norms of statehood, it is essential to identify that the exercise of humanitarian power is connected to the production of new spaces. Through redefining specific borders as humanitarian zones, humanitarianism actualizes the geography of space in conflict areas and in regions impacted by famine (Ticktin, 2014). In addition, they create a space in situations where state territories and gateways to national territories become zones of humanitarian government. Examples include the case of numerous borders in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe, and the United States.
For instance, in Europe, the multiplication of border barriers, detention centers, and shelters represent a new step in European border history. Additionally, the intensification of maritime control, border patrol, and deportation signal as well something new in European territory policies. This means that the continent has undergone humanitarianization and established borders as humanitarian zones due to the emergence of crises (Heintze & Thielbörger, 2018). With this development, border politics have overlapped with confinement practices such as offering aid to refugees and migrants. As a result, the externalization of European territories, as well as policies of rejection, has been viewed as actions of compassionate control and as a response to security issues. Patrolling the coastlines, expanding the immigrant reception centers’ reach, and fencing the borders have therefore become humanitarian reactions to refugee and migrant emergencies to border crises.
The mutual relationship between humanitarian search as well as rescue operations and state-sovereign performances on European boundaries reproduces a dynamic that humanitarian militarism worldwide has best embodied for many years. Although there is a diversity of historical, cultural, and geographical contexts characterizing today’s humanitarian borders, it is possible to identify a transnational incentive of compassionate border security that relates to humanitarian ethos with militarization and policing.
Humanitarian Aid in Sri Lanka
The economic crisis in Sri Lanka is emerging as one of the nation’s worst humanitarian crises in many years. Over six million people are now in urgent need of humanitarian aid (Ticktin, 2014). Millions of families are faced with issues such as shortage of food, cooking gas, fuel, essential supplies, and medications as the humanitarian effects of the economic disaster continue to multiply (Jayasinghe & Smith, 2021). The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent holds specifically great concerns for about two million people living below the poverty line, who are among the most impacted by the various issues (Saliya, 2019). The situation has become worse for those already struggling to find ways to feed themselves and their families.
The SLRCS is an impartial and neutral organization that has provided humanitarian aid to the people of Sri Lanka since its independence. About ten thousand dry ration food packs, as well as four thousand cash grants, have been distributed in twenty-five districts of the nation (Jayasinghe & Smith, 2021). Additionally, school packs have been offered to ten districts (Jayasinghe & Smith, 2021). Clean water is being offered to those queuing for days for food parcels and fuel for ten thousand families in four districts (Jayasinghe & Smith, 2021). The organization is collaborating with the ministry of health to avail medicines that currently are in short supply in the hospitals (Mahadevan & Jayasinghe, 2020). Red Cross ambulances and first aiders have been giving emergency medical attention to about ten thousand individuals during recent protests, most of whom are transported to other hospitals for better treatment (Heintze & Thielbörger, 2018). As a member of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the group’s mission is to better the lives of vulnerable individuals by mobilizing the ability of humanity.
Opposite Modalities of Intervention
Anthropology, as well as humanitarianism, have varying modalities of intervention. Whereas the former targets to define the world with the least possible change to the study object, the aid sector adopts modification of its field of action and aims to support social change (Mazzarella, 2019). The two operate in different temporalities, as suggested by Tate (2020). Due to its ethnographic mechanism, an anthropological study has a long-time frame (Tate, 2020). It is needed to enable the understanding of the logic of actors thoroughly and share their experiences (Tate, 2020). Conversely, humanitarianism is part of a shorter time frame usually defined by the finances provided by donors. Action must be effective since the non-governmental organization is accountable to institutional, private donors, and beneficiaries. Due to the two characteristics mentioned above, anthropology, as well as humanitarianism have different approaches to reality.
On the one hand, the field of anthropology, based on the logic of actors, tries to comprehend the complexity of social associations. On the other hand, humanitarianism views reality from the programmatic logic. The latter requires, at times, a simplification and homogenization of the social reality. These varying strategies of working make joint work hard (Hilhorst, 2018). There is sometimes confusion between the two working cultures and their actors. The anthropologist would appear as academic and lacks attachment to the reality of humanitarian experiences. Their work is unfitting with the developer’s time and operationally insufficient (Hilhorst, 2018). Humanitarianism is at the service of action and cannot last longer for more abstract reflections from the field.
Solutions
Making the Logic of Local Action Intelligible For International Action
Anthropology is focused on precise social functions, usually trying to understand the vision of those living the phenomenon. Humanitarian action is always conducted by multinational actors such as the United Nations and its agencies or NGO actors acting outside their territories. The interest of anthropology is to create a connection between the local scale and the international actors. It makes the social exchanges of one intelligible to the other. It can be mobilized to assist the global actors and support the local population targeted by aid programs. In an article about anthropology in West Africa during an Ebola epidemic, the author establishes certain actions that an anthropologist can implement to be helpful to humanitarians in fighting the disease (Hilhorst, 2018). One of the proposals was that an anthropologist could observe, report, interpret, and explain local viewpoints on external action. The point is not to comprehend for the sake of simply understanding but to operationalize the insights gained to result in arrangements, adapt humanitarian action, and make it acceptable to local people.
The second proposal is that an anthropologist can identify local medical capabilities as well as local structures that can participate in the emergency response. For the anthropologist, it means sharing objective information about the health structures available and insights on the social constructions that could be helpful for the planned humanitarian response (Hilhorst, 2018). When encountering a disaster, the populace invents and implements means to react to it and alleviate the effects. The interest of anthropology is to identify the structures and place them in a position the international action works by incorporating them into its response approach.
The third proposal is that an anthropologist can share their local contacts with international health specialists who coordinate the response. Whether or not they are investigators, civil society members, or leaders in the private or public sectors, these individuals can aid and communicate with actors of international action (Hilhorst, 2018). The humanitarian response aims for different scales and thus requires contacts at various levels, including local, national and international.
Anthropologists can make the global humanitarian response intelligible to local people. They have a responsibility to serve as cultural mediators within the targeted populace. This can aid in defusing social tensions that may exist. For instance, among the Kissi in Forest Guinea, it is prohibited to bury pregnant women with their unborn children. The fetuses are removed from the body, and together with the mothers, they are buried separately. In the context of the Ebola epidemic, it was not feasible to operate on the woman to conduct the separation.
Conclusion
It is safe to conclude that the paper has properly discussed the issue of humanitarian action and border politics due to security and further explained the concepts of anthropology and humanitarianism. The paper has revealed that the suffering of people is the core concern of humanitarian aid and programs. Furthermore, the problem at hand can be addressed by integrating the anthropological perspective into the analysis. Additionally, it is evident that there are various issues that can affect the action or response to emergencies in different places. For instance, in case of refugees in various countries, particularly in Europe, where citizens of nations such as Sri are in need for active support, policies that will ensure security at their borders are typically enacted. The described situation shows that despite having the desire to help reduce the effect of life problems or natural calamities, it is essential to consider the safety of those receiving assistance and those residing in the country as well.
References
Heintze, H. J., & Thielbörger, P. (2018). International humanitarian action. NOHA Textbook: Springer International Publishing.
Hilhorst, D. (2018). Classical humanitarianism and resilience humanitarianism: making sense of two brands of humanitarian action. Journal of International Humanitarian Action, 3(1), 1–12. Web.
Jayasinghe, M., & Smith, C. (2021). Poverty implications of household headship and food consumption economies of scales: A case study from Sri Lanka. Social Indicators Research, 155(1), 157–185. Web.
Mahadevan, R., & Jayasinghe, M. (2020). Examining multidimensional poverty in Sri Lanka: Transitioning through post-war conflict. Social Indicators Research, 149(1), 15-39. Web.
Mattingly, C., & Throop, J. (2018). The anthropology of ethics and morality. Annual Review of Anthropology, 47, 475–492. Web.
Mazzarella, W. (2019). The anthropology of populism: Beyond the liberal settlement. Annual Review of Anthropology, 48(1), 45-60. Web.
Saliya, C. A. (2019). Credit capital, employment and poverty: A Sri Lankan case study. Wealth, 8(1), 4-12. Web.
Tate, W. (2020). Anthropology of policy: Tensions, temporalities, possibilities. Annual Review of Anthropology, pp. 49, 83–99. Web.
Ticktin, M. (2014). Transnational Humanitarianism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 43(1), 273–289. Web.
Ullah, A. A., & Kumpoh, A. A. Z. A. (2018). Are borders the reflection of international relations? Southeast Asian borders in perspective. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 5(3), 295-318. Web.