Humanitarianism as a concept has existed in various forms for a great deal of time. However, the turn of the century and rise of humanity as a global identity has led to an increase in humanitarianism efforts, especially in conflict areas. Unfortunately, it has not necessarily led to an increase in the successes of humanitarian efforts in conflict areas. The purpose of this paper is to explore what contributes to humanitarianism failing outside of the contextual issues often identified within a conflict zone. Specifically, I will look at the role the philosophy underpinning humanitarianism plays in trapping humanitarians in a cycle of providing conditions for the development or exacerbation of the very conflict they aim to prevent. Using the …show more content…
Humanitarian sentiment is driven by “a universal ethic founded on the conviction that all people have equal dignity by virtue of their membership in humanity.” Here, the universality of humanity is the ethical principle upon which humanitarianism is built. However, this ethical principle alone does not drive the choice to be humanitarian; rather there must be an active ideal in addition to this principle that motivates people to actually follow through with actions related to this. Fiona Terry’s ‘Condemned to Repeat’ refers to this active ideal as the ‘humanitarian imperative’. The ‘humanitarian imperative’ makes the claim that “there is an obligation to provide humanitarian assistance wherever it is needed.” As the description of humanitarian imperative points out, humanitarian action is driven by the obligation that is developed from the ethical principle. Simply believing in the equality of humanity is not why humanitarianism is carried out, but rather the sense that if there is equality in humanity, then there must also be equality in upholding people’s sense and right to humanity. Therefore, humanity has a responsibility, a charge, an ‘imperative’ even, to ensure that other humans like themselves do not …show more content…
It is easy to understand why humanitarians believe in building a “humanitarian space as an area separate from the political.” In order to appear independent, they must be operating outside the political sphere of a conflict, and that can theoretically only be achieved when detached from the “political stakes” . However, in practice, this detachment is unrealistic and impossible to achieve, mainly because humanitarianism is a response to a political issue. To reach the people, the nation must be open and willing to allow humanitarians in, which requires interaction with the political powers that have the authority to grant that permission. Additionally, in order to have the resources necessary to carry out aid efforts, actors have a “political need…to legitimate decisions to fund…relief in chunks digestible in the emotion-driven popular press.” As bureaucratic organizations, humanitarian actors require support and resources in order to achieve their goals, and must craft politically inclined stories about who they have determined the victims are in a conflict to gain that support. In that way, humanitarianism is constantly tied to the politics of a conflict because they build a political narrative in order to
In “On the American Indians” Vitoria argues that there are few situations that justify a country to use humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention is defined as military force, publicly stated to end the violation of human rights, against another state. Vitoria discredits the justification of humanitarian intervention in every case, unless you are intervening for an ally or a friend. In this paper, I will argue that his view is more plausible than it may at first appear.
An Imperfect Offering is a powerful personal memoir from a James Orbinski, a Canadian who has spent most of his adult life in front-line humanitarian work in the world's worst conflict zones. Despite its dark chapters, it is also a hopeful story about the emergence of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) as a new and independent agent of civil society, and the possibilities of making the world a better place. In “An Imperfect Offering”, James Orbinski tells the story of people who have been harmed by war, and humanitarian workers who have come to heal them when possible. He engages in deep reflection on the nature of humanitarian response and the many threats to this most human activity. He has sharp criticism for governments who act to cause suffering or to prevent its relief. He asks, “How am I able to be in relation to the suffering of others?” His life as a doctor, and a humanitarian worker illustrates this answer. Accordingly, the books main thesis is that humanitarianism is about the struggle to create space to be fully human. However, he illustrates how this struggle is becoming increasingly difficult with the imperfect offering of politics, which has resulted in the blurring of boundaries between humanitarian assistance and the political objectives of military intervention.
In Peter Singer’s Famine, Affluence, and Morality, he critiques the way in which modern societies have grown accustomed to their ordinary thoughts about famine, affluence, and morality in general. Singer describes a situation in which nine million refugees from East Bengal are living in poverty, and it is the responsibility of the wealthy, and better-off nations to take immediate and long term action to provide for them and to end poverty overall. (Singer, 873) Through his essay, Singer envisions a new world where giving to those in need is no longer seen as charity, but rather a moral duty. He states that in the world we currently live in, it is seen as generous and partaking in a good deed when you donate money to charity, and no one is blamed for not (876). Singer proposes that excess money should be given to those in need, rather than spending it in “selfish and unnecessary” ways (876).
... The answer is that while we were morally obligated in the past to take action and stop the atrocities in these countries (if there were any to begin with), we later morally justified our future actions. This entire proposal is not here to tell society what is being done in the current state, but it is telling you what you are obligated to do as a human being. If we took the moral standpoint, as we should, at all times when making decisions, we would find that moral justification would take a backseat to obligation. We as a society have acted upon our obligations in the past, such as during World War 2, yet the occasional dose of action is not what we are supposed to desire as humans.
Wheeler, Nicholas J. ‘Pluralist or Solidarist Conceptions of International Society: Bull and Vincent on Humanitarian Intervention’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 21,3 (1992)
Since the Renaissance of the 15th century, societal views have evolved drastically. One of the largest changes has been the realization of individualism, along with the recognition of inalienable human rights.(UDHR, A.1) This means that all humans are equal, free, and capable of thought; as such, the rights of one individual cannot infringe on another’s at risk of de-humanizing the infringed upon. The fact that humans have a set of natural rights is not contested in society today; the idea of human rights is a societal construction based on normative ethical codes. Human rights are defined from the hegemonic standpoint, using normative ethical values and their application to the interactions of individuals with each other and state bodies. Human rights laws are legislature put in place by the governing body to regulate these interactions.
The concept of humanitarian intervention is highly contested but it is defined by Wise to be the threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or a group of states) aimed at preventing widespread and grave violations of fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose territory force is applied.
Barnett, Michael, and Thomas G. Weiss. Humanitarianism in Question: Politics, Power, Ethics. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2008.
In this article published by the UNHCR, it describes Angelina Jolie as an incredible humanitarian. Jolie has been the recipient of many awards including the Citizen of the World Award, the Global Humanitarian Award and the Freedom Award. Her humanitarian efforts sparked while she in Cambodia filming an action movie in 2000. By 2001 Jolie was named a UNHCR Goodwill ambassador and since then she has gone through more than 40 missions to “highlight the plight of million or uprooted people and to advocate for their protection”.
One of most crucial aspects of humanitarian intervention is the lack of proper motives. As noted by Bush, Martiniello, and Mercer, in the case of Libya and Côte d’Ivoire the Western nations were pursuing their own economic imperial interests under the guise of humanitarian intervention (Bush). The lack of pure motives to help decrease crimes against humanity resulted in an increased number of human rights violations in both Libya and Côte d’Ivoire (Bush). In order
He discusses the way the precise meaning of impartiality has evolved in recent years, in a world where in the same emergency, a Red Cross nurse can use the term to describe her medical program and a UN commander can use the same word to describe air strikes (Slim, 2010, p344). There is impartiality where it means you uphold accepted human values irrespective of the allegiance of the person involved. It has been reasserted by NGOs to be the guiding ethic of operations in war contexts. For the ICRC, impartiality was grounded in a commitment to non-discrimination that would facilitate proximity to suffering populations and an immediate response to need. The humanitarian idea of impartiality as a basis for delineating a space for ethical action apart from the political realm was influenced by the view, expressed by Pictet, that political struggle is invariably futile (Leebaw, 2007, p.227).
Simplistically framing the conflict along the lines of “good guys and bad guys” does not help the cause of human rights, but refuels anger, reinforces diverging contradictions, and makes conflict-resolutions difficult. In the midst of this savage contrast is the allegory of the savior compelled to come and rescue the victims. Hotel Rwanda castigates the non-arrival of the liberator, but nonetheless the liberator image is constructed through the western journalists and United Nations general. He is portrayed to be the savior of the survivors from the genocide. Him being the savior is exaggerated as it portrays that Africans are not capable of doing anything without help from the
The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background information while supporting my hypothesis that human rights should be based on particular cultural values and finally drawing a conclusion.
Peter Singer said; “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (Famine, Affluence, and Morality). As human beings, we have a moral compulsion to help other people, despite the verity that they may be strangers, especially when whatever type of aid we may render can in no approach have a more significant consequence on our own life.
"International solidarity is not an act of charity but an act of unity between allies fighting on different terrains toward the same objective. The foremost of these objectives is to aid the development of humanity to the highest level possible. " This quote by Samora Machel shows the importance of the principle of solidarity. The principle of solidarity goes beyond the concept of helping each other; it implies the notion of shared and equitable responsibility for a common objective.