The ‘humanitarian community’ is as much of a myth as the ‘international community’, suggesting a central set of values or a coordinated leadership that does not exist. In short, neither the humanitarian or international community has an office or a phone number. Nevertheless, the humanitarian enterprise has been dominated by ‘western’ based funding and organisations for many decades. As the economic primacy shifts from west to east and from north to south, so does the humanitarian aid system. So called ‘new’ aid actors are expanding their operations, within their countries of origin as well as beyond their own borders.
The discourse around the implications of this shift tends to focus on perceived values that are prevalent within the western dominated aid system, and whether or not these values can or should extend to the new aid actors that are now taking the lead in many regions. Concepts like neutrality or independence do not appear to have the same level of importance to the non-western aid actors. It can be questioned whether or not they need to, as these so called values can be interpreted as nothing more than useful tools to gain access in certain contexts.
Not so for the principle of impartiality, which is the prerequisite that aid should be provided based on needs of the beneficiaries only. This principle is arguably at the core of what defines humanitarian action, and consequently as a concept tends to be easier to explain across different cultures and practices. It is exactly this principle that has been compromised the most, not because of the emergence of new, non western aid actors, but because aid is more openly then ever used as a military or foreign policy strategy. The military use aid for counter insurgency, ‘hearts and minds’, the politicians use aid for state building purposes. In this environment, impartiality is at odds with the political or military objectives, and safeguarding it is challenging. This is why especially in conflict situations, the expatriate presence remains crucial for the delivery of aid.
First of all, there is an ambiguous role of the state in civil wars, as the authority of the state is exactly what is challenged when the conflict is ongoing. Taking responsibility for the well-being of its citizens is no longer what drives or at least should drive the state authorities. Almost inevitably, the state will prioritise aid to its own supporters, or as a tool to increase their acceptance and authority in regions where this has weakened. Not only does this lead to distribution of aid based on the highest political, rather than humanitarian needs, but also it poses a risk for the people that need it. To receive aid from an authority which is contested by an armed opposition, can be dangerous for the recipients.
Secondly, the current preference to support a local response, even when this local response is financed or subcontracted by one of those foreign independent organisations, fundamentally negates the role of the expatriate aid worker in conflict. In most cases, this expatriate aid worker is there to enable impartiality. Local aid workers are part of the society that is in conflict, and as such badly placed – even if willing and capable – to have the responsibility to ensure substantial amounts of resources are distributed based on needs only. The pressure from families, communities, armed groups, and government officials on the local aid worker to divert aid in their favour, is huge, and even the most independent local aid worker will have to take this pressure into account.
By introducing an expatriate decision maker, this pressure can be diverted. “Of course I would like to help you, but my stupid foreign boss won’t allow me”. Whether the foreigner comes from Norway, Qatar, Malaysia or South Africa is irrelevant. It is not a matter of superior knowledge, competence or morality of the expatriate aid worker; it works because the expatriate has one quality the national aid worker will never acquire: the ability to go home when things go wrong.
By Michiel Hofman. Photo by Yann Libessart © MSF, 2013.
Abstract of a paper presented on the 26th of October 2013 on the “Human security: humanitarian perspectives and responses” conference in Istanbul.
Over all these is well written concept to understand at least the different dynamics while delivering aid to the most deserving population:
Because of the high international staff turnover in humanitarian organizations and the different nature of conflicts in different countries, it is hard to build organizational memory to improve the efficiency of aid operations and to implement lessons learned.
For the INGOs working with expats it’s true if things go wrong expat can rollback their luggage and go home, In some context like Pak/Afghan regions for any wrong done not only the individual but also the family held responsible, in this case of course the family will be the organization itself and the other expat and nation staff working at that moment.
There are other challenges also exist for the NGOs staff more for the nation staff; The challenge is not only of the impartial aid provision but there are many other challenges link with this, no matter Expats or national staff are in the driving seat; Like for fighting parties, aid can become a resource to be fought over. Aid leakage or political taxation of aid refers to situations in which a portion of the aid goes directly to the fighting parties. This can extend the war to a longer period of time once the parties get independence of these economic compulsions. And once these fighting parties are more
Aid that helps only one side in a conflict can fuel tensions and competition between the sides. Simply ensuring equal distribution to different ethnic groups can reinforce divisions and labels and make the groups less dependent on each other. This is also not good for a constructive society development.
These groups also monitor the situations and actors which bring this disequilibrium to the statuesque in the society and again much of the burden falls on the staff who are working long and are national staff.
Ijaz Zareen FC asstt Timergara project Pakistan mission
Very honest and enlightening piece of article. I agree that one can only be impartial to a certain point when working and living in the same community. The point is that impartiality must not be blindly interpreted as a result of a porous value system and the author makes a very good case for the same.
Yet, i would like to point out a few thoughts that popped up as I read it. The International Organizations after all are also driven by economy. If they do not break even that year it can impact their resources for the next mission and so they tap into the currency in-equivalency to hire four locals for the pay one expat.
Moreover, issues like communication gaps, cultural disparity and general local knowledge makes the presence of local humanitarian workers indispensable and often the more adept at functioning in a certain environment assumes leadership even if it may be delegated to a foreigner on paper.
Moreover, it makes me wonder -would the local staff be more diligent and committed to integrity if offered same or at least similar remuneration and benefits? Would they feel they owe a lot more to the organization, if they would have the job security of a new posting elsewhere upon completion of the mission?
After all concepts like impartiality, equality and fairness have a certain threshold because we are inherently programmed to self preserve. For instance, can we blame a local staff member if he breaks protocol attends a certain patient first – because say his wife has been brought in? Just like the very same principle dictates why financial sustainability of the organisation precedes their principle of equal pay for equal work.