[CCIH-Haiti] A critique of aid and humanitarian organizations from The Lancet

[martinrs at aol.com]

This editorial from The Lancet, _www.thelancet.com_ 
(http://www.thelancet.com) , observes in an  unfavorable light the behavior of some aid and 
humanitarian organizations in the  current Haiti disaster. One might ask whether 
any faith-based organizations also  exhibit some of the behaviors described 
here.
 
 
 
Editorial
 
The Lancet, _Volume  375, Issue 9711_ 
(http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue/vol375no9711/PIIS0140-6736(10)X6110-4) , Page 253, 23 January 
2010 
_Next  Article_ 
(http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60111-0/fulltext) >
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60110-9

 
 
Growth of aid and the decline of  humanitarianism
 

_The  Lancet_ 
(http://www.thelancet.com/search/results?fieldName=Authors&searchTerm= The Lancet)  

 

 
Picture the situation in Haiti: families living on top  of 
sewage-contaminated rubbish dumps, with no reliable sources of food and water  and virtually 
no access to health care. This scenario depicts the situation in  Haiti 
before the earthquake that catapulted this impoverished and  conflict-ridden 
country into the international headlines. Now the latest target  of 
humanitarian relief, international organisations, national governments, and  
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are rightly mobilising, but also jostling  for 
position, each claiming that they are doing the most for earthquake  
survivors. Some agencies even claim that they are “spearheading” the relief  
effort. In fact, as we only too clearly see, the situation in Haiti is chaotic,  
devastating, and anything but coordinated.
 
Much is being said elsewhere about the performance and  progress of relief 
efforts in Haiti. It is crucial that the immediate needs of  the Haitian 
people are urgently met. But it is scandalous that it took a seismic  shift in 
tectonic plates for Haiti to earn its place in the international  spotlight. 
Political rhetoric is familiar: domestic and international  point-scoring 
during times of crisis and disaster is a common game played by  many 
governments and politicians. But this dangerous and immoral play has many  losers, 
especially since the rules include judging the needs of desperate people  
according to subjective perceptions of worth.
 
For example, just think back 5 years to the dismal  international response 
to the catastrophic earthquake in Pakistan. Additionally,  over the past 2 
weeks alone, flooding has displaced 30 000 people in Kenya  and 4000 people 
in Albania, and in Yemen, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,  and Somalia 
hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced by further  fighting. 
All international agencies, including the World Food Programme, have  recently 
withdrawn from Somalia—one of the most violent countries in the world  with 
a population size similar to Haiti. It is unimaginable that international  
agencies and national governments might one day compete for attention in 
leading  a Somali humanitarian relief effort. The reasons for their current 
inaction are  most un-humanitarian.
 
We have repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that when  viewed through 
the distorted lens of politics, economics, religion, and history,  some lives 
are judged more important than others—a situation not helped by the  
influence of news media, including ourselves. This regrettable situation has  
resulted in an implicit hierarchy of crisis situations further influenced by  
artificial criteria, such as whether disasters are natural or man-made. As this 
 week's special issue on violent conflict and health shows,* the health 
needs of  people affected by conflict are repeatedly neglected.
 
Politicians and the media make easy targets for  criticism. But there is 
another group involved in disaster relief, which has  largely escaped public 
scrutiny—the aid sector, now undoubtedly an industry in  its own right. Aid 
agencies and humanitarian organisations do exceptional work  in difficult 
circumstances. But some large charities could make their good work  even 
better. The Lancet has been observing aid agencies and NGOs for  several years and 
has also spoken with staff members working for major  charities. Several 
themes have emerged from these conversations. Large aid  agencies and 
humanitarian organisations are often highly competitive with each  other. Polluted 
by the internal power politics and the unsavoury characteristics  seen in 
many big corporations, large aid agencies can be obsessed with raising  money 
through their own appeal efforts. Media coverage as an end in itself is  too 
often an aim of their activities. Marketing and branding have too high a  
profile. Perhaps worst of all, relief efforts in the field are sometimes  
competitive with little collaboration between agencies, including smaller,  
grass-roots charities that may have better networks in affected counties and so  
are well placed to immediately implement emergency relief.
 
Given the ongoing crisis in Haiti, it may seem  unpalatable to scrutinise 
and criticise the motives and activities of  humanitarian organisations. But 
just like any other industry, the aid industry  must be examined, not just 
financially as is current practice, but also in how  it operates from 
headquarter level to field level. It seems increasingly obvious  that many aid 
agencies sometimes act according to their own best interests  rather than in the 
interests of individuals whom they claim to help. Although  many aid 
agencies do important work, humanitarianism is no longer the ethos for  many 
organisations within the aid industry. For the people of Haiti and those  living 
in parallel situations of destruction, humanitarianism remains the most  
crucial motivation and means for  intervention.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ccih.org/pipermail/haiti_ccih.org/attachments/20100123/dbf68033/attachment-0001.html>