All posts in Opinion

Humanitarian Action and the Security Challenge

Posted by / 15th January 2012 / Categories: Opinion / Tags: , / -

As Alfred Einstein noted, “not everything than can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted”. Paraphrasing Einstein, the humanitarian agencies today confront security challenges where not everything is what it appears to be and should be.

Over the past decade, we have been witnessing an increasing level of insecurity in the different contexts in which humanitarian agencies operate. Unfortunately killings, kidnappings and serious injuries are not something extraordinary; rather they have become a common occurrence. The year 2008 generated the highest number of attacks, killings and kidnappings against humanitarian workers. It marked the highest point of seriously wounded since the data started to be collected, with 276 victims in 165 separate security incidents (according to “Aid Worker Security Report 2011″, Humanitarian Outcome 2011).

Despite recent data showing a decline of security incidents from 2009, this should not lead to the wrong perception that security has increased and that humanitarian agencies are less vulnerable. Nothing could be further from reality. On the one hand, there is no unique and standardized definition of what constitutes a “security incident”, and not all agencies systematically record them. On the other hand, the contexts where humanitarian agencies operate today are more complex, less predictable and increasingly volatile, making their work more difficult.

There is a diversity of opinions on whether today’s contexts of operation of humanitarian agencies are new contexts or whether there has been an evolution of already existing trends. Without entering into this controversy, there is no doubt that today humanitarian agencies have to confront an increasingly insecure environment characterized by globalization, polarization and radicalization of the conflicts, and they have to deal with their immediate consequences.

In this environment, aid agencies and their personnel have become targets. Former symbols of unequivocal protection such the Red Cross now find themselves unable to guarantee it. Others, like the UN flag, have become, on occasions, the opposite of protection. What has changed or evolved today in these contexts?

1. A notorious increase of internal armed conflicts -in comparison to international conflicts- and their internationalization (such as Somalia or the DRC), with an increasing presence and mix of local and international groups guided by diverse motives and agendas (political, economical, religious, etc).

2. An increase in the number of non-state actors that are very difficult to identify, hardly structured and without clear chain of command. Their violence is stimulated by an easy and rapid access to communications, copy patterns and weapons.

3. Strategic alliances are established between the different non-state actors resulting in an increase of criminal actions that in most cases are camouflaged under political and “claimable” agendas.

4. An increased number of National States trying to advance their diverse interest and political agendas, often disguising an interventionist political discourse or its military strategy as humanitarian aid.

5. An increasing tendency towards the privatization of the humanitarian assistance, where the Humanitarian Imperative is not longer the reason of the action. Rather, it is discarded or even worse, despised.

6. A proliferation of NGOs that under this “generic” name agglutinate a large variety of organizations not necessarily respecting and sharing humanitarian principles.

7. NGOs are often perceived by armed groups and non-state actors as competitors for the control over local populations on whom they depend mostly for supplies, recruitment and the possibility to hide among them (i.e. refugee camps).

8. Neutrality, as a traditional “protection shield”, has been disappearing and today is no longer synonymous of security and protection as it was in the past. Humanitarian agencies and their staff are perceived as aligned to one side, supporting or helping one of the parties in conflict. Parallel to that they are perceived as importers of certain “western/foreign” values.

The immediate result is a deep and substantial erosion of the humanitarian space with the deterioration of the respect of the rules of the game and of the International Humanitarian Law. Or even worse, its absolute ignorance. Indeed, humanitarian agencies are perceived as antagonistic to the interests and objectives of the conflicting parties. Parallel to this, the perception of agencies as instruments of foreign interest, combined with the increasing multipolarity of powers in the international arena, is used by armed groups to legitimatize their attacks against the humanitarian workers. This shows that the attacks perpetrated against the aid agencies are not only motivated by “a wrong perception of them”, but also that they are deliberated and strategically organized. Indeed, the growth of the unstable and highly volatile environments, characterized by fragile or failed states with ethnic conflict and with the presence of terrorist and criminal groups, makes it more difficult for humanitarian agencies to work under basic security conditions. The level of relative stability and normality that the presence of humanitarian agencies bring to the context is perceived by those actors as a threat to their interest. These groups remain restricted to their area of operations without seeking international recognition. This focus on the local provides them with a “sense of impunity”, attacking and targeting humanitarian agencies.

At present, humanitarian agencies and their personnel are confronted with difficult challenges in environments which continuously metamorphose, making it fundamental to depoliticize humanitarian aid and re-establish the respect for the independence, impartiality and neutrality of humanitarian action. At the same time, it also becomes fundamental to guarantee the respect of International Humanitarian Law and with it the free and secure access to the beneficiaries. It is essential that the NGOs establish confidence in their local work, and that their actions are based purely on the Humanitarian Imperative. This will certainly help to reduce security risks.  facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

David Cameron, the European Union and UK Sovereignty

Posted by / 14th December 2011 / Categories: Opinion / Tags: , , / -

“We are never going to join the Euro, we are never going to give up the sort of sovereignty that these countries are having to give up.”

These were the words that U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron announced in referring to the new compromises that the other EU leaders are about to accept. This interpretation of nations’ sovereignty was a clear attempt to justify his veto of a firmer union. Unfortunately, the argument does not stand up to scrutiny, and clearly other reasons were behind his decision.

Indeed, the regionalization of the economy was doomed to failure without, at least, solid coordination of economic policies. Then again, this could be simply a formality; since the start of the crisis, we have all witnessed the daily bread that are controls of national policies by EU. The hands of our national democratic governments are already tied. In this difficult situation, the best option for their political credibility is to say that if they have them tied it is because they have agreed. Trying to face defeat with dignity, as it were. This attitude has the advantage of reinforcing the political leaders’ relationship with their electorates. As the nation’s representatives, they transmit an image of control, reassuring that the reason why the EU rules are a priority is because of the voluntary choices they are making, because it matches their national priorities. This is of course not equivalent to direct consultation with the people, but it create a useful, albeit vague, limbo of the indirect consent.

Certainly accepting the obvious limits to their power might be the wisest option. But even more certain is the truth that these limits are of paradoxical complexity that every single state has to deal with. Since the very beginning of the Westphalian world, the design of a nation mosaic where each nation-state had their own unlimited sovereignty was never wholly accurate. The influence exerted by neighbours has never let the utopian and self-sufficient nation-state enjoy real sovereignty, even if it was theoretically conceived as omnipotent. We could have asked Charles IV of Spain about this, while he was struggling to contain all kind of influences from his revolutionary neighbours in France. Being a human artifact, the Westphalian world was actually fragmenting new independent actors from regions, in which a whole collection of cultural, political, and economic traditions were shared.

Moreover, by continuing the myth of sovereignty up to this very day, the hoax is taken to extremes. In our globalised world, influences flow all over the world almost laughing at the national frontiers. Admittedly, this is a scenario that the Westphalian designers probably never thought about. Multinational companies, supranational governments, word wide social movements, consumer habits, ways life… they all defy the quixotic nation-state. These territorial entities have mostly become merely another actor in a dynamic web in which influences flow without any established hierarchy.

The United Kingdom is not an exception, however much Mr. Cameron would like to have us believe otherwise. The local sovereign in London has had little power to interfere in the constant income of immigrants that determine its demography, or the uncontrollable economic dynamics that are shaking its markets. This is particularly the case of its very own goose that lays golden eggs: the City, its financial hearty and one of the few national champion-industries that London can still boast about.

Therefore, dear Mr. Cameron, I am afraid that regardless of whether the British people like this or not, it’s been a very long time since the UK, without direct consent by its people, surrendered its sovereignty to the complexities of the globalised world. Ironically, this began with all those financial institutions that now are the main reason not to join the new Europeans deals, and whose significant financial revenues the UK fears will be threatened by this supposed infringement of sovereignty.  facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail