Continuing my flirtation with futurology, what about the way aid as a business seems to be acting like aid as an idealistic pursuit? I mean, why the quasi obsession with perceived threats to our principles and access — Has the “erosion of our space” gone platinum yet? — while largely ignoring the much more potentially ruinous erosion of our market share? Why worry about the inevitable securitization of aid when global warming, the private sector, and non-Western NGOs are going to steal our hallowed seats at the head table?
Pope Urges Young to Care for Planet – Headline in the IHT, 3 Sept 07, p. 3
Did this rather dull report on the meanderings of Pope Benedict XVI catch your eye? It should have. The golden age of humanitarianism died that day. When the Pope himself jumps on the environmental bandwagon – when the Holy See decides that spiritual salvation matters less than the carbon footprint of the Popemobile – then it’s not only a bandwagon, it’s the beginning of the end of humanitarianism as we know it.
The Seventies and Eighties marked the golden years of the development industry. A patchwork coalition of Western nations, academics and eager volunteers set out to eliminate starvation, disease and poverty, and generally to make the Earth a better place to live.
It wasn’t working so well (still isn’t), which left the turf (and donor pockets) wide open for the onset of the humanitarian juggernaut. In a relatively short span of time humanitarians became the new heroes. Forget about trying to establish a private sector agrarian economy in a desert like Burkina Faso. Our message held the sexy promise of immediate gratification: let’s save lives and alleviate suffering right now!
That was the end of development organizations. Their money dried up. Some NGOs dried up. Others, simply swapped hats. They began calling themselves humanitarian organizations while running income generation or literacy projects. The word “humanitarian” itself became synonymous with doing good.
Why blog about this new bandwagon? Because we sit at the precipice, blissfully unaware that over the next ten years the exploding global environmental movement is going to bury humanitarianism. In our focus on the competition among us, nobody seems be thinking about the competition between brands of goodness. Nobody is talking about an upcoming 25% crash in donations. Or maybe it will only be 15%. I don’t know. I’m just making this up. But the bottom line is clear: People who want to do something good with their money will progressively opt for a different generation of NGOs. Once the money starts, the graduate degree programmes and NGOs will follow. Then the celebrities, politicians and the media. Then the rest of the donors and maybe even Angelina Jolie. And all that time, the effort and enthusiasm of youth will be siphoned away.
Many “humanitarian” organizations will again change their hats. They will prioritise the war on global warming over the war in Darfur. They will write reports about the needs of populations in 2050. Other organizations will resist, retaining focus on saving human lives in the present. Their days are numbered. Trees may not sound so important, but how do a few thousand lives way over in Congo or Afghanistan compare to our planet? That’s what the people with the money will say as well. As Pope Benedict XVI so aptly put it: We need a decisive ‘yes’ to care for creation.
So it won’t be the West’s politicisation of aid or the erosion of “humanitarian space” or even the way bureaucracy has pummelled the idea of compassion right out of our work that killed off we humanitarians. In the end, it will be the loss of our market share to the planet. In the end, it will be Al Gore.
Is humanitarianism at the edge of the precipice? If it’s the notion of humanitarianism that perceives presence in warzones and proximity to beneficiaries as the only credible response to inhumanity, then let it fall! I’ve considered myself a humanitarian for fifteen years or more now, and having been shot at, robbed at gunpoint and arrested due to my tendency to frequent dangerous countries, I’d be very happy to let another movement take the initiative – as long as the final outcome is compatible and equivalent to the objectives of humanitarianism.
I’ve put myself at risk in the past (and will no doubt do the same again) because I want to highlight man’s inhumanity to his fellow man, and thereby save myself and my descendants from the worst excesses of the human condition, and not because I want to save the lives of strangers in other countries. I would like to see a brighter future for my kids, and their offspring. Without doubt in my mind, the inhumanity that presents a real obstacle to that brighter future is driven by greed – by the ubiquitous wish of people to have and consume more than their neighbour.
So if the climate change lobby is driven by the same motivation as humanitarianism – the ambition for a fairer, more equitable, less selfish future for all, then let them have the resources. After all, we don’t save lives and alleviate suffering simply out of altruism. We do it because we’re afraid of the consequences of not standing up to injustice and corruption and greed. If I could save lives by tree hugging (and reducing my carbon consumption and embracing alternative technologies and practicing localism) as opposed to running in and out of warzones, that sounds like a far more comfortable way of addressing my fear for the future!
Paul, I get the point that saving lives is saving lives. But there’s a temporal demarcation here. How could the climate change lobby be driven by the same motivation or logic as humanitarianism, which is not about futures but about todays?
Actually, they’re up against it when it comes to really effecting a change – saving lives now holds some currency with today’s politicians, but saving lives in 50 yrs time is never going to win the same number of votes.
I still come back to cause and effect in my motivation – I want to save lives because I object to the greed and self-interest that generates the need for humanitarian action. Whilst humanitarian action is mostly focussed on the effect, it’s the cause we ultimately want to address. in that respect, I see little different between genuine humanitarianism and genuine environmentalism.
Surely a lesson from the growth of the human rights movement is more relevant here: yes may be some blurring between humanitarianism, development, human rights and environmentalism, and some organisations will/are changing their vocabulary and marketing to tap into the emerging hot stream of funding and public/Western opinion.
But despite these shifting advocacy/marketing campaigns, hasn’t there always remained a place for principled, consistently articulated humanitarianism?
Are you overstating the ‘threat’ to the market share posed by ‘climate change organisations’? Aren’t ‘climate appeals’ , unless they are fundamentally humanitarian (i.e. flooding relief) always going to be undermined by their lack of immediacy and ability to capture public opinion vs. humanitarian appeals?
And on the demand-side, unless we move into some utopian, war-free world, humanitarianism in some form is going to be demanded?
Isn’t this ‘form’ the more pressing issue? Aren’t securitisation, government power play (both donor and host), and involvement and funding from new, non-Western NGOs and state departments in fact the more urgent threats? Are they really inevitable?
Would like a blog on non-Western NGO and state involvement next please 🙂