Hope and Struggle: Understanding International Development

Haiti: Effectiveness of humanitarian assistance one year on

By Zack Larmand, Staff Writer

Flickr via DVIDSHUB

As the one-year anniversary of the Haiti earthquake passes us by, it’s worth a moment to reflect on one of the largest relief efforts ever undertaken in international development. Although many of us are aware that an earthquake devastated Haiti, few of us understand what it takes to re-develop an entire nation and how this fascinating process occurs.

To discover these issues, I will first explain the idea of human rights and the roles played by International Non Governmental Organizations or INGO’s in relation to development. Ted Richmond, an Instructor at Ryerson University, will then helps us to look into some successes and failures of Haiti’s relief and bring awareness to an issue that deserves far more of everybody’s attention.

A Look into Humanitarian Assistance

Understanding International Development begins with understanding the tasks that must be completed in order for development to take place. One then must ask the question, what is humanitarian assistance?

Humanitarian assistance is traditionally a response to a temporary natural disaster, such as floods, fires, famines, or earthquakes (Haiti). The Penguin dictionary of International Relations also argues for social and endemic disasters to be included.

The end result of these disasters is the loss of resources to meet basic human needs. One could then assume that the tasks needed for development mirrors the tasks needed for disaster relief. However, the Penguin dictionary’s definition takes the idea of humanitarian assistance one step further.

It suggests the idea of humanitarian assistance may be tied to a ‘shared humanity’, meaning that helping to fulfill those basic needs is not a voluntary act of charity but a human right.

Traditionally in Canada, religion helped us to act out of charity, not just because people were in need, but because it was the right thing to do. The key word in the last sentence was right. It’s key because when one puts human in front of it, you create human right.

Human Rights: The notion that human beings have rights because they are human beings and not because they are citizens of State X or State Y is, in terms of the practice of international relations, a relatively new right.

The dictionary of International Relations makes us realize that citizenship to a state was and likely still is a pre-condition for attaining anything close to a human right. In the field of international development, the focus on the ground is often based solely around basic human needs.

But when it comes to raising money for the developing world, nothing has proven more effective than religion. Faith has been one of the most effective vehicles for converting empathy into humanitarian aid.

Because of this history, the faith-based sector has the potential to provide competitive and efficient aid, and in so doing are retrieving funds from those non-religious. A very humorous and celebrity filled promotional video made by Judd Apatow and NOT approved by the American Jewish World Service speaks to this point quite succinctly:

That being said, religion in certain regions comes into question. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) is a direct example of this potential conflict. The name Red Crescent represents that organizations understanding human life and aid relief efforts will trump religious tension.

An article in The Economist called “How Much Evil Can You Not See?”

The author discusses the issue of the Red Cross and their “see no evil” policy. By being politically neutral or “seeing no evil,” the Red Cross is allowed to go places where outspoken organizations such as MSF (Doctors without Borders) are not allowed. The outspoken MSF policy is seen as “bearing witness” to evil atrocity. This of course is opposed to the Red Cross’s “see no evil” policy.

I had the opportunity to interview Ted Richmond, Instructor of NGO’s and World Governance at Ryerson University’s Chang School, to better understand the issues surrounding NGOs. The following is his take on why certain INGO’s choose not to advocate and turn somewhat of a blind eye to atrocity:

INGOs are involved in many different fields internationally, such as humanitarian relief, human rights, environmental issues and combating global poverty through local development activities.

As well, there are many different types of INGOs. We usually think of well-known ones, such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace or Doctors without Borders, but the list should also include anti-corruption watchdog organizations, think tanks, trade unions, international women’s organizations and international associations of Aboriginal peoples.

Almost all of these INGOs are involved in some kind of advocacy—popularizing their issues and creating pressure for solutions. But for INGOs involved in humanitarian relief activities, the role of advocacy is more difficult. Their volunteers or their leadership will certainly have opinions about the causes of the starvation or pandemics or armed conflicts they are witnessing.

But if they speak out they may compromise their basic work of helping the people who are suffering. They may be evicted from the country, or prevented access to the areas of greatest need. Or their workers or the people using their services may be targeted for violent reprisals.

Two of the largest and best-known INGOs involved in humanitarian relief efforts are the International Committee of the Red Cross / Red Crescent (ICRC) and Medecines Sans Frontieres / Doctors Without Borders (MSF). Both have struggled with the issue of advocacy.

In fact, MSF grew out of a split with ICRC on the need to speak out or ‘bear witness’ to the causes of atrocities, and later went through further organizational debates and changes about this same issue. More details about their positions on advocacy can be found on the websites of the respective organizations.

In my view, it is important to recognize that the differences between ICRC and MSF are not as great as some might suggest. Both have brave, dedicated and selfless workers risking disease and dodging bullets to bring aid to those in greatest need.

Both are cautious about public advocacy so as to not compromise their work or their workers. ICRC practices ‘silent diplomacy’, expressing its concerns to United Nations personnel and media and other players behind the scenes. MSF is committed to bearing witness selectively, when judged to be necessary.

Perhaps there is room for both types of approaches to the wide-spread need for humanitarian relief in today’s global conditions.

Haiti – Successes and Failures of INGO’s

In his article for the Washington Post, William Booth discusses how two International NGOs, HelpAge International and Project Concern International, went into Haiti and restored order in the nursing homes. However, Booth says that six months later, “HelpAge abandoned the project after it failed to negotiate a new agreement with city hall. The group Project Concern International, which was operating a clinic on the grounds of the nursing home, also closed down after the mayor asked for rent.”

A video made by HelpAge International addressing the role they played in Haiti:

A Link to Project Concern International’s latest news:

It appears that NGOs are having problems. So what does the government have to say? According to Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive, “foreign NGOs operate in Haiti with little regard to government planning and that their presence, while necessary, can actually undermine long-term recovery efforts.

“By funneling most aid dollars through the NGOs rather than the government, which struggles with a legacy of corruption, the NGOs condemn the country to a cycle of dependence.” Despite this statement, Americans alone have donated $1.4 billion toward the relief effort.

OXFAM, an NGO with the slogan “ending poverty begins with women’s rights,” provides a video of their contributions in Haiti:

Medicines Sans Frontieres (or Doctors without Borders) are known for their exceptional service on the ground, but also for vocalizing their perception of the issues. Dr. Greg Elder, MSF’s Medical Deputy Project Manager for Haiti, says “there has been a failure to provide the most urgently needed services.” Listen to their frontline report podcast entitled “A Year after the Earthquake in Haiti” dated January 21, 2011.

The previously mentioned NGO’s are a part of a non-religious aid effort in Haiti. However, organizations that are devoted to faith have a relief effort in Haiti that is equally credible. Cathy Lynn Grossman of USA Today highlights how “$300 million dollars and thousands of faith powered volunteers have poured into the country to help rebuild and restore its spirit.”

The top faith based organization noted by Grossman was Catholic Relief Services (link: http://crs.org/), who raised $182 million. Other faith based groups were Samaritans Purse raising $51 million, The United Methodist Church with $43 million, and the North American Mission Board with $10 million. Grossman also says, “more than 2000 Baptist volunteers worked in Haiti with the two major Haitian Baptist organizations”. Also noted were the 150,000 “buckets of hope containing one week’s worth of food” by Baptist Churches in the USA.

Flickr via Land Rover Our Planet

Haiti, whose population is 80 percent Catholic, is able to accept relief from religious organizations at far greater ease than a nation with a smaller Christian population. Haiti is just one example of many countries in need of humanitarian assistance. However, despite some successes there were a lot of issues as well.

A lot of people in our society feel that there are right and wrong ways to carry out particular processes. In the case of International Development and the deliverance of foreign aid, it seems that a proper process has not been identified.

In Haiti, one year after the earthquake, the Prime Minister said, “little regard was shown to his government by certain NGO’s on the ground.” Dr. Greg Elder of MSF said, “[there was] a failure to provide urgently needed services”.

I asked Ted Richmond whether or not we should be looking to understand aid and development as a process that CAN be improved, or if we should understand the situation as so dire that any aid or assistance must be considered good?

There [are] a lot of good and important questions behind this question and I am afraid there is no short answer that is overly clear or useful. Let me try instead to sort out some different issues.

In a crisis situation like Haiti after the earthquake there is likely to be more agreement on what is needed (food, medical supplies, shelter). But there will still be disagreements about priorities (resources are always limited). There will also be debates about the most effective means to deliver the aid that is needed so urgently, and that may involve role conflicts for the aid organizations and for the local government and popular organizations. One of the roles of International Non-Governmental Organizations or INGOs is to analyze these situations so that the international community is better prepared for future disasters.

A very different debate is what kind of foreign aid or development activity really helps to reduce and eliminate global poverty. Of course there would still be health and environmental disasters even if global poverty was to be greatly reduced, but the stark reality is that the main victims of short-term disasters are also the main victims of long-term global economic inequality.

This is an area of conflicting philosophies and practical approaches that cannot be summarized easily. I think it is fair to say however that the notion of ‘foreign aid’ coming from the global North to the global South is increasingly discredited as an effective approach to combat global poverty.

Many different groups and forces are experimenting with alternatives including locally-controlled development activities, microcredit (low-interest loans to the most impoverished for basic economic advancement), environmentally appropriate agriculture and development, respect for Aboriginal rights and economic claims, etc.

A third and also fundamental issue is the relation between INGOs and foreign states imposing economic and political solutions through armed intervention. Even where this armed intervention is justified in terms of protecting the human rights of the local population, the reality of armed intervention complicates the work of INGOs which are basically non-government and politically neutral agencies.

The issues become even more complex when the armed forces of the external states take on humanitarian activities usually associated with INGOs to gain the confidence of the local population. This issue is exemplified currently in the continuing military and political conflict in Afghanistan.

In short there is no single answer to the question, because it is really a question about opposing views and different practices in facing some of the main global issues of the 21st century.

The best way to understand this better might be to pick a particular issue (like effective emergency relief, microcredit, or humanitarian assistance) and then explore the websites of the different actors. Medecines sans Frontiers and Project Ploughshares are particularly useful on the tensions between the military and the INGOs in countries where humanitarian relief and humanitarian intervention are occurring simultaneously.

An issue that involves a continuum of perception, international development must be considered on a case by case basis, and always in relation to the fundamental concept of human rights as granted to the human being NOT to the citizen.

ARB Team
Arbitrage Magazine
Business News with BITE.

Liked this post? Why not buy the ARB team a beer? Just click an ad or donate below (thank you!)

Liked this article? Hated it? Comment below and share your opinions with other ARB readers!