There is no doubt that humanitarian aid has long ago become one of the key policies of every democratic country taking part in the solution of world crises and assisting in the stabilizing of the situation in the countries in need of help. There have always been countries with unfavorable climatic conditions, inadequate political development or stability, etc. – there are many reasons for countries or specific geographical regions to be unable to provide for the basic needs of their population. Humanitarian aid is viewed by all countries and international organizations as a sign of goodwill and a way to pursue leveling the development of the whole global community to a certain level. However, there has been much discussion recently on the point of whether humanitarian aid is reaching its goal and fulfilling the initial purposes stipulated for it.
The reasons for the discussion are diverse; one may understand the necessity of this discussion from the cases of countries rejecting humanitarian aid from some countries for political reasons, which worsened the situation and did not correspond to the principles belaying the provision of aid: indifference, neutrality, independence, etc. No matter how one would call it, but humanitarian aid should be faceless and unbiased, which is not observed nowadays, as noted by Ambassador Busso von Alvensleben, Commissioner for Global Issues (Germany):
As we all know humanitarian crises are growing in scale and frequency, and the volume of international humanitarian aid is increasing accordingly. Thus, it is more important than ever to do it the right way. How we deliver humanitarian aid is as important as its final result (von Alvensleben).
The Ambassador emphasizes the way aid should be delivered as an integral part of the whole process of its provision – he is sure that only fact of some country or organization providing aid is not enough to make it look beneficial in the eyes of the global community – everything should be done right, so there should be some surveillance to control the way the basic principles of humanitarian aid are kept to:
Independence, impartiality, and neutrality of humanitarian aid are of crucial importance. Only if these principles are respected governments are ready to accept humanitarian aid. It will also help ensure the safety of humanitarian aid workers in the field (von Alvensleben).
It goes without saying that humanitarian aid in its essence is already good and there is no need to prove it’s being a sign of goodwill – if some organization or the government of some country agrees to provide this help, then it already means its good intentions. However, the Ambassador noted some cases of politicization of aid, which should be unacceptable. The main issues in the protection of the initial value of humanitarian aid he mentions are: to understand what humanitarian aid means both for the country that provides it and for the country that receives it, as well as how it can and will be used; to ensure it’s not being politicized by any of the parties; to ensure direct access to the provide aid by those who really need it but not by those who are in power in the country; to encourage a positive perception of the aid by the receiving country free from any political implications (von Alvensleben).
Judging from these considerations voiced by the representative of the country that was the Head of the European Union two years ago it becomes possible to outline the main discrepancies the present Western approach to humanitarian aid has with its ideal positioning. The bias of some countries to helping certain countries in need pursuing their individual political goals creates many complications in the process of ensuring mutual global assistance – some countries refuse help, others use humanitarian aid as a tool of pressure and manipulation.
One more issue in which the approach to humanitarian aid turns out to be inefficient is the lack of trust between countries rising from the rising needs of under-developed countries and countries in the catastrophic position. The situation in the world is worsening with the course worsening conditions that prove not to be improving even despite the enormous financial flows into the countries in need, which logically raises the question of the effectiveness of aid. If nothing changes, then there are several alternative explanations – either the money given for the humanitarian aid is spent not correctly, or the way aid is implemented and applied is chosen incorrectly. A variant that growing needs are continuously satisfied by the growing aid is also credible; however, it does not correspond to the initial meaning of humanitarian aid. It was designed not to let some countries live at the expense of others; it is only a contingency measure to help those in need. So, if help is provided, the providers need to see the improvement; in other cases trust towards the government of the receiving country or the organization responsible for the utilization of humanitarian aid may shrink.
The question of choosing new strategies of providing humanitarian help is coming to the fore, since traditional ways of doing it bring negative or zero results:
Clearly, the days of direct service delivery are over: enough literature has been produced to understand that creating parallel structures or undermining local capacity is just bad practice… One strategy that is gaining ground within the international community is community-driven reconstruction, or community-driven recovery (CDR) (McBride and D’Onofrio).
Community-driven recovery is considered to be one of the innovative approaches to humanitarian aid that are planned to improve the situation – the basis of its action is to provide the population of the region in need to guide their own recovery. This approach rests on the principles of delegation of decision-making to local authorities that know the best alternatives their region potentially needs. Its implementation still seems rather challenging; however, it gives more transparency to the process and ensures the efficiency of aid, thus becoming a beneficial way of improvement of the contemporary situation in the field.
References
Alvensleben, Busso von. Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) Conference. 2008. Web.
McBride, Lizanne and Alyoscia D’Onofrio. Community-driven reconstruction: a new strategy for recovery. International Rescue Committee, 2008. Web.