Humanitarian Aid as a Cause of Conflict in Syria Essay (Critical Writing)

Introduction

The issue of humanitarian aid is interesting because, on the one hand, it allows providing help to people, often refugees that escape violence in their homeland, which is the case with war conflicts. On the other hand, it is unclear whether these efforts prolong or worsen the militant conditions and enable opposing parties to use this aid to their advantage in proceeding with the conflicts. Considering the presence of war conflicts in the contemporary world, such as the vents in Syria, it is necessary to clearly identify whether humanitarian aid’s benefits outweigh the negative impact it has.

This paper will consider whether humanitarian aid in actuality is necessary for refugees’ camps and other settlements affected by war or if it worsens and prolongs conflicts by providing additional resources for the militants. One instance is the genocide in Rwanda, which affected thousands of people and led to many deaths. Thus, section one will provide a brief outline of the article by Sarah Kenyon Lischer in which the author elaborates on the topic in question. Section two will outline the arguments that support the need for humanitarian aid. Section three will focus on the opposing views using the example of contemporary conflict in Syria and the use of aid in the state. Finally, the fourth section will present a conclusion summarizing the principal opinions and determining whether humanitarian aid is a necessity in all cases regardless of the political implications and prospects of misuse.

Background and History

In the article Collateral Damage: Humanitarian Assistance as a Cause of Conflict, the author provides an example of Rwanda’s refugee camps that were used for recruitment and training of the militants. In essence, the encampments established to help civilians escape the war and provide them with food, water, and housing served as training camps further fueling the war in the state. Based on this, one can argue that in some cases, organizations providing humanitarian aid should dedicate efforts towards ensuring better security and invest resources in training police or using the help of guards. Firstly, Kenyon Lischer argues that the politicization of the groups engaged in a conflict impact the perception of humanitarian aid.¹

Secondly, the state’s ability to mitigate the conflict or lack of power to do so can lead to the misuse of resources. Finally, the moral implications that lead to the distribution of aid, usually described as impartial and neutral, do not consider the consequences that arise in regards to the political and military implications of the conflict.² Therefore, it is evident that humanitarian aid should not be viewed as merely a relief for citizens that became a part of violent conflict. It is because it can be used by militants as a vital resource for continuing their efforts in exacerbating the situation. The next section will consider the pro and cons arguments regarding the issue.

Pro Humanitarian Aid

Humanitarian aid is provided in many forms and addresses the urgent needs of a vulnerable population that can be suffering from natural disasters or violence in their home state. One of the main arguments that can be used to support the provision of humanitarian aid during conflicts is the ethical implications of relieving the population from a lack of essential resources necessary for living. People that are victims of natural disasters or war conflicts often are in an awkward position because they can not access food resources, clean water, and safe housing. Often these are individuals living in developing countries, and their states do not have the funds to provide the necessary support to their citizens. Ford and Ward state that international organizations clearly state that their help is neutral and does not intend to support any particular party, only help those in need.³ In her article, Kenyon Lischer challenged this position, arguing that while the intent may be based on the ethical implications of helping those in need, the outcomes often depend on the specific situation.⁴ This argument will be further discussed in the next section of the paper, which presents the opposing view.

The notion and practice of humanitarian aid have existed for many years. The UN first began its work after World War II, helping Europe rebuilt its cities and aiding the people after the conflict.⁵ The current efforts include assisting refugees to displaced from their homes, supporting those in hunger, helping children, and sick individuals. One can argue that without this assistance, many people that became a part of military conflicts or natural disasters would be unable to survive. The registration efforts, for instance, money that the UN provides to Syria as the county aims to rebuild itself, can help millions of people return to their home state.

It is necessary to review the real-life examples of the impact that humanitarian aid has in order to understand its importance fully. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) argues that the organization’s work helps a large number of Palestinian refugees affected by the Syrian war.[3] The UNRWA received additional funding from the European Union equivalent to $46 per person that helps satisfy the basic needs of these individuals connected to shelter and food. In its statement, the humanitarian establishment argues that many individuals in the region “remain dependent on UNRWA for food and our medical supplies.”[4] However, the report fails to account for all consequences, both political and social because regardless of the intent, it is impossible to deny the impact that these financial resources have. This is one of the main arguments of Kenyon Lischer’s article, only focusing on the positive aspects of help.

The Syrian conflict aiders, which will be discussed more in depth in the next section of this paper as it is a vivid illustration of the collateral damage of the humanitarian aid, have received a lot of criticism. The primary argument that humanitarian organizations use, however, is that they aim to deliver whatever help they can.⁶ The UN and some other organizations remain in Damascus and continue to provide food and medication to the citizens, helping them in these difficult times.

Another important implication is the overall lack of vital resources such as food, water, and medication that usually occurs in the case of war conflicts. Kenyon Lisher points out to the Rwanda conflict during which some non-government organizations chose to provide supplies to militants engaged in killing Tutsi to protect refugee camps from being raided.⁷ Additionally, some NGOs rationalized their actions by arguing that event soldiers need to be fed. Hence they did not make judgments about the activities of these people. While this approach is valid, it should be noted that humanitarian aid is a resource that requires time, effort, and financing to be delivered to conflict areas. Moreover, these resources are not abundant, and thus a more careful consideration in regards to the decision-making process may be necessary to avoid collateral damage and ensure that these actions are actually helping people.

It should be noted that in many cases, NGO provides services that otherwise would be a responsibility of a state. This relates to sheltering the refugees and helping them access medical assistance. Without this assistance, individuals would be deprived of vital necessities, leading to more significant numbers of casualties and deaths. For instance, the United Nations (UN) recently launched a project of measles vaccinations in the Democratic Republic of Congo that otherwise would not be implemented because of the associated costs and lack of professional human capital.⁸ The country has been in a state of war because of interethnic violence, leading to a large number of people migrating within the state. This is only one example of the benefits that humanitarian efforts provide to many people around the globe by allowing them to maintain a good health state.

Another issue connected to the Democratic Republic of Congo and the UN’s efforts is prior Ebola outbreaks that occurred in the northern part of this country. This issue has an impact on a global level because an outbreak of a similar disease can quickly spread outside the country because of poor sanitary conditions. In this case, the UN’s employees work in refugee camps to provide vaccines to people and help track the number of individuals who are already sick.⁹ This allows the organization to adequately report and control the events, thus protecting the global population from a prospective disease outbreak. Based on this information, it can be argued that humanitarian aid does not solely serve an ethical purpose, but also has implications for protecting people globally by managing humanitarian problems in crisis areas.

Therefore, the efforts of various NGO are necessary because they allow people to survive in dangerous conditions of war and conflict. However, one issue with the ethical implication of humanitarian aid is the limited resources that humanitarian organizations have. Despite being funded by well-developed countries, most lack the necessary financials to fulfill all humanitarian needs of people across the world.¹⁰ Therefore, a clear need for choosing more carefully how to allocate resources and to whom arises.

Against Humanitarian Aid

Kenyon Lischer outlines four primary aspects that contribute to the worsening of a conflict due to humanitarian aid. For instance, the food and water can be used to feed the militant organizations, eliminating their need to locate resources for supporting their fighters.¹¹ The protection intended for the civilians can be used by the militants as well. Other elements include the support of the war economy and the legitimacy of combatants that are a result of humanitarian aid.¹² In general, there appears to be no valid strategy or mechanism that international organizations use to mitigate these issues.

One of the recent war conflicts that impacted millions of people and led to a severe humanitarian crisis is the Syrian war. The primary issue with this ongoing conflict is the government’s use of weapons, including chemicals, to target civilians, which leads to many deaths of innocent people.¹³ The president of Syria, who controls the military and has support several other states uses these attacks to suppress his opposition, which in effect lead to sanctions against the country. Regardless, Syria receives prodigious amounts of humanitarian aid from international non-profit organizations.

It is necessary to understand that the provision of humanitarian aid requires billions of dollars that are usually given by wealthy countries as a way of helping nations in need. Sparrow argues that the funds provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) that are estimated at $30 billion were used by the state’s president as a resource to continue military actions.¹⁴ This arises as a severe problem in the context of sanctions imposed by many countries on the Syrian government as an effort to stop this crisis. It can be argued that in this case, the primary issue is the lack of policy disused by Kenyon Lischer that will allow organizations such as WHO and the United Nations (UN) to assess the situation. The analysis of the political implications of the Syrian conflict would lead to an understanding of a need to stop providing the state’s government with resources that are used to kill civilians.¹⁵ Therefore, the conflict between the international community’s perception of the Syrian government and help given to it by the UN is evident.

It should be noted that there are legal implications that guide the actions of the UN. However, the organization can choose to halt its current efforts. Sparrow cites the UN’s resolution that outlines the practice of humanitarian aid provision in the following manner “humanitarian assistance should be provided with the consent of the affected country.”¹⁶ In the case of Syria, this allowed the government to control all funds that arrive in the state and use them as they deem necessary. The analysis presented by Ford and Ward provides similar concussions as the authors argue that Syria misuses humanitarian aid delivered to it by the United States.¹⁷

As was previously mentioned, the provision of humanitarian aid should be neutral, aiding each individual in need. However, in Syria, the government controls the UN’s humanitarian efforts, blocking the delivery of goods and medication to an area controlled by the opposition.¹⁸ Arguably, the state uses this humanitarian aid as another mean of pressuring the other side of the conflict. This corresponds with the argument presented by Kenyon Lischer regarding a need to assess the political situation in a state prior to sending humanitarian aid. Additionally, one can argue that this raises a question of the proper fund distribution since instead of helping the government pressure its citizens, the UN could invest in efforts that would result in actual improvement.

Thus, the initial idea expressed in the article by Kenyon Lischer is that the political situation in a country matters because it affects the actuality of who receives aid. In Syria, “765 patients are in urgent need of medical attention, but the Syrian government refuses to let them travel a few kilometers to a Damascus hospital.”¹⁹ Other restrictions are connected to UN truck carrying food and medication that get limited access to these regions. All in all, one can argue that this opposes the main idea of neutrality in humanitarian aid provision because a large number of the Syrians is obstructed from accessing it. Ford and Ward provide support to this argument stating that “areas that the Syrian government can easily reach without the UN’s help if it chooses to provide food and medicines to the populations it controls.”²⁰ Thus, the political alliance of people in Syria directly affects their ability to receive food and medication, requiring a better assessment of the political situation in a country to which the aid is sent.

An important idea that should be considered is that in the conditions of war, the perfect delivery of humanitarian aid is impossible. However, the abuse demonstrated by the Syrian government and the use of it by Rwanda illustrates the need to review the current policies because in this cases in harms the civilians. Arguably, the UN supported the war economy in Syria by paying to non-profit organizations in the state that are linked to the president’s Al Assad’s family.²¹ Theft and resale of goods delivered by the non-profits were also reported during this civil war.

Another example of misuse and improper application of humanitarian aid is the genocide in Rwanda. According to Kenyon Lischer, Hutu militias hid among civilians and put effort towards protecting the details of the genocide to be able to access food and other items provided by humanitarian organizations.²²

It should be noted that none of the authors whose opinions were analyzed above, including those expressed in the original article by Kenyon Lischer, advocate for the complete abolishment of humanitarian aid. Instead, they argue that in some cases, it is abused and thus should not be provided. Also, Ford and Ward state that the current needs for humanitarian aid in the world far exceed the capabilities of international organizations.²³ Yet some of them chose to focus most of their efforts and funding on specific states that were proven to abuse the help. According to Daar, Chang, Solomon, and Singer, “humanitarian crises directly affect more than 140 million people in 37 countries.”²⁴ The authors argue that in 2018, only one-third of the humanitarian needs were covered. While additional funding is necessary for the distribution of this financing has to be controlled more carefully as well.

Conclusion

In her article, Kenyon Lischer explores three main topics that are discussed in this paper. Firstly, although the intent of providing humanitarian aid to those in need may be neutral, there is a political context to these actions. Therefore, international organizations engaged in humanitarian activities have to pay closer attention to the impact that their actions have on the citizens of a particular country. Secondly, the current policies used by international organizations have to account for the politicization of the people before the distribution of aid. Finally, in some cases, it is best to avoid delivering humanitarian aid because it may enable prolonging of the conflict and crimes associated with it. The contemporary conflict on Syria between the president of the state and his opposition support these findings. The government controls the delivery of aid, not allowing it into the areas controlled by the opposition. Moreover, the use of chemical weapons and targeting of civilians carried out by Syria should not be supported by international humanitarian organizations. Thus, it can be concluded that by continuing to deliver aid to the government of Syria, these humanitarian organizations contribute to the state of war in the country.

Bibliography

Daar, Abdallah S., Trillium Chang, Angela Salomon, and Peter A. Singer. “Grand Challenges in Humanitarian Aid.” Nature, Vol. 559, No. 7713 (2018), pp. 169-173.

Ford, Robert and Mark Ward. Assad’s Syria Plays Dirty with US Humanitarian Aid.The Hill (2018). Web.

Kenyon Lischer, Sarah. “Collateral Damage: Humanitarian Assistance as a Cause of Conflict.” International Security, Vol. 28, No. 1 (2003), pp. 79-109.

Mass measles vaccination campaign begins in Ebola-hit DR Congo province. UN News (2019). Web.

Shaheen, Kareem. The Murky Links between Syrian War Crimes and International Aid.The National (2019). Web.

Sparrow, Annie. How UN Humanitarian Aid Has Propped Up Assad. Foreign Affairs (2018). Web.

UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.EU humanitarian assistance helps UNRWA respond to the growing needs of Palestine refugees in Syria. ReliefWeb (2019). Web.

Footnotes

1. Sarah Kenyon Lischer, “Collateral Damage: Humanitarian Assistance as a Cause of Conflict,” International Security, Vol. 28, No. 1 (2003), p. 79.
2. Kenyon Lischer, p. 80.
3. Robert Ford and Mark Ward, Assad’s Syria Plays Dirty with US Humanitarian Aid, The Hill (2018), para. 10, Web.
4. Kenyon Lischer, p. 82.
5. UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. EU humanitarian assistance helps UNRWA respond to the growing needs of Palestine refugees in Syria. ReliefWeb (2019). Web.
6. Kareem, Shaheen, The Murky Links between Syrian War Crimes and international Aid, The National (2019), para. 5, Web.
7. Kenyon Lisher, p. 80.
8. Mass measles vaccination campaign begins in Ebola-hit DR Congo province, UN News (2019), Web.
9. Mass measles vaccination campaign begins in Ebola-hit DR Congo province, para. 2.
10. Ford and Ward, para. 7.
11. Kenyon Lischer, p. 85.
12. Kenyon Lischer, p. 85.
13. Ford and Ward, para 10.
14. Annie Sparrow, How UN Humanitarian Aid Has Propped Up Assad, Foreign Affairs, (2018), para. 12, Web.
15. Sparrow, para. 10.
16. Sparrow, para. 12.
17. Ford and Ward, para. 7.
18. Shaheen, para. 10.
19. Ford and Ward, para. 8
20. Ford and Ward, para. 5.
21. Shaheen, para. 5.
22. Kenyon Lischer, p. 82.
23. Ford and Ward, para. 8.
24. Abdallah Daar S., Trillium Chang, Angela Salomon, and Peter A. Singer, “Grand Challenges in Humanitarian Aid,” Nature, Vol. 559, No. 7713 (July 2018), p. 169.