Depending on one's political perspectives, there is either tremendous excitement or serious anxiety about the new administration in Washington. There is, of course, plenty of that in the US, but there are strong emotions elsewhere as well. In Pakistan, for example, there are many who are pinning hopes about the future of their party leaders on the new government. There are others, in the opposite camp, who are concerned for the exact same reasons.
In my research world - one that touches on humanitarian emergencies - there are plenty of questions about an uncertain future. Yet, even in this period, there are deeply troubling signs of how relief institutions, which are supposed to care for all, view their work and its importance. It has become abundantly clear, and disturbingly so, that in this uncertain time international NGOs are appealing to the new administration to rethink the proposed cuts or withdrawal because it would lead to other countries being in the leadership role, or that adversaries will fill the gap in humanitarian action. This is a serious betrayal of fundamental principles of humanitarian support, and one that should be called out as a betrayal.
For example, InterAction - one of the largest and most prominent alliances of humanitarian relief organisations in the US, which includes dozens of institutional members with a long history of providing food, medical and emergency relief - issued a statement a couple of days ago (in the light of the new US State Department policy to stop providing aid) which says, "the recent stop-work cable from the State Department suspends programs that support America's global leadership and creates dangerous vacuums that China and our adversaries will quickly fill."
This is deeply troubling to say the least. Is the point to provide aid, save a life, or to have global leadership? Does it matter if the life of a vulnerable child, or a sick person, saved by funds from the US, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Qatar or any other country? We have seen this play out in our own midst as well when we are more concerned about whose picture, among the elite politicians, would grace the bag of flour or rice than the actual need of the people.
Questions have long been asked about the political nature of aid - and many practitioners in the humanitarian sector have argued about the neutrality, and apolitical nature of aid. They have advocated their causes as true, honest and for the greater good of all regardless of any discriminatory factors. Unfortunately, positions such as the one taken by InterAction only reinforce the idea that aid is often an arm for political power, regional influence and global politics - not a true effort to help those who are in need.
Within the last week, several statements and op-eds by global health officials also have adopted a tone that is pleading on one end, and have taken an elitist tone on the other. There are statements about why the US must lead for the greater good of humanity, and if the US pulls away, the entire global health order would collapse. There is no question that US funding has played a phenomenal role in addressing important global health challenges, but the approach has to be rooted in dignity, humanity and humility - not of entitlement or saviourism. The entitlement that seems to be emanating from such statements is disrespectful to the mission of being there for those who are in need.
In the current moment, even those who are ardent champions of international NGOs agree that reform is in order. But the calls to reform are not new, and serious change has not taken place for decades. The system has been stuck and remains inefficient, inflexible and overly bureaucratic. But reform is not simply about fixing bureaucracy. It has to start with intent and fundamental values. Any serious reform should start with asking: why do we help someone? Is it because we care and believe in human dignity, or are we helping others for some other self-serving interest? Humanitarian action requires humility, not hubris.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ