[Previous entry: "Anti-porn law will target the right people (UK)"] [Next entry: "New Panthers' war on whites"]

10/27/2008: "Humanitarianism does more harm than good - says man who worked for humanitarian orgainizations"

Foley's book is an exceptional critique of humanitarian interventionism, in that it is written by a self-professed humanitarian. Conor has worked for Liberty, Amnesty and the United Nations in every global hotspot of the last decade ranging from the Balkans to Afghanistan via Africa and Asia

There is also the issue of the role humanitarians play in actual conflicts. Once on the ground, humanitarian organisations are often there promoting western values, although they proclaim to be neutral. In realty, very few modern day humanitarian organisations are neutral. Instead, they are multimandate. This means in addition to providing humanitarian assistance (food, shelter, etc) they also work on programmes promoting the rights of women, literacy for children and sex education. Most humanitarian organisations are run and supported by upper-middle class, educated, liberal, white, westerners unable to divorce themselves from their own cultural bias. Of course women in Afghanistan should be treated equally to men â€" and while we provide Afghans with food we are also going to get women into parliament. I (and Foley, I assume) believe in the rights of women, but one needs to keep in mind the cultural modernity of many of these countries where the west is involved. Western governments are always accused of imperialism, but far too few interrogate what is essentially humanitarian imperialism and Foley calls them out for it.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, there is the issue of humanitarianism and legitimacy. Has humanitarianism become a way to legitimise and justify our interventions in the affairs of other states for ulterior motives? Sadly, yes, in many cases. The difficulty of course is how do you divorce the two. With regard to Iraq, there was a blanket abuse of the humanitarian ideal to legitimise a patently illegitimate war. In Afghanistan the case is more difficult. The US went in to punish the perpetrators of 9/11, but there has been a humanitarian emergency in Afghanistan for the last decade (if not the last 30 years). Of course, the Bush administration never planned to develop Afghanistan, which is one of the reasons the mission has gone so poorly. And the US did not go to Afghanistan to relieve humanitarian suffering. From Kosovo to Africa and Asia, the last two decades are littered with humanitarian interventions, many of which might have done more harm that good.

[ The author shoots himself in the foot here when he argues "Of course women in Afghanistan should be treated equally to men" - otherwise he makes good points on how cultures should not impose their values on other cultures as well as raising the issue of how this cultural imperialism is often really more about profiteering and even revenge than being kind to the targets. ]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/26/humanrights-internationalaidanddevelopment