If there is one word which sums up the modern Western mentality, it is "humanitarian." When political, religious or even moral motives for action are seen as less than wholly legitimate, the humanitarian claim is a kind of trump card. Who can be against helping people in danger? There should be no surprise that attempts to appropriate it for a particular policy, cause or campaign are so continuous. The point may have been reached where the humanitarian concept represents the principal counter in political rhetoric to the concept of "terror." We, the American administration might argue, are the sort of people who go halfway across the world to rescue others from tyranny or famine, whilst "they" -- the terrorists -- travel a similar distance just to kill and destroy.
The murky nature of such claims is evident to most people. Something in them seems true, but mixed up with something fraudulent. Judgments on the humanitarian successes and failures of recent years have pushed in on us in recent weeks. The 10th anniversary of the failure in Rwanda is a reminder of the terrible results of doing nothing in the face of genocide. The return of American and other troops to Haiti illustrated the consequences of interventions carried out without sufficient seriousness or perseverance. The attacks on Serbs in Kosovo demonstrated that people saved from ethnic cleansing will not necessarily refrain from it themselves, however long the period of international tutelage to which they are subject.
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
Even as these lessons are considered, new problems are apparent. The peace plan brokered by the French after their intervention in the Ivory Coast is in trouble. In Sudan, according to some alarming reports, including those by theNew York Times writer Nicholas Kristof, new ethnic cleansing is taking place in the west of the country, just as the war in the south seemed to be winding down. In Iraq, an intervention retrospectively justified on humanitarian grounds hangs halfway between some kind of success and some kind of failure -- nobody knows which, even if the former is still more likely -- and continues to cost lives every day.
Clarity on these matters is not easily achieved. But the light cast on them in a new collection of essays brought out by Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) is very welcome. By reasserting the distinction between the humanitarian idea proper and the humanitarian motives or pretensions of political leaders, the MSF writers are able to move the arguments back to where they ought to be taking place. In essence, they are saying that there are two quite different sets of arguments. One is about foreign policy, and this should take place in the knowledge that even worthy foreign policy is not in the first place humanitarian.
The other is about the humanitarian mission, and the emphasis must be on the need for humanitarian organizations to distance themselves from governments and limit, as far as they can, their role as instruments of policy. US Secretary of State Colin Powell's call for non-governmental organizations to act as "a force multiplier for us ... an important part of our combat team" in Iraq shows the dangers. According to Jean-Herv Bradol, chairman of MSF France, "humanitarian logic" does not endorse humanitarian military intervention, or other forms of involvement, or abstention from intervention or involvement. It has nothing to do with any of them except to estimate their impact on the victims which all policies create and "to range itself with those deemed expendable for whatever reason." As other contributors remind the reader, modern humanitarianism emerged in the 19th century by "asking who needs help because of this war?" and not "who is right in this war?"
Bradol, who laid out some of these ideas in a speech at the Royal Institute for International Affairs this week, argues that these principles should lead to a re-ordering of priorities. We are treating as urgent on supposedly humanitarian grounds situations which are politically important, but which would not be at the top of any humanitarian list.
Crude mortality rates, for instance, are the best simple indicator of humanitarian need, but they show that Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are very far from being the worst situations. The resources devoted to them, however, dwarf those deployed to deal with that in, for instance, the Democratic Republic of Congo, where millions may have died.
In other instances, like North Korea, huge resources are being expended in humanitarian aid, but that aid has not reached many of those for whom it was intended because, MSF says, it has largely gone to the party and the army. The humanitarian label is attached to a policy aimed at calming and containing the North Korean regime -- a policy which may be rational but, says MSF, let's not pretend it has anything much to do with feeding ordinary people, who have continued to starve to death in large numbers.
On Iraq, MSF steered a brave course. It refused to condemn the war in advance, as some other relief agencies did, on the grounds that neither condemnation nor approval was appropriate. It refused to join other agencies in what turned out to be inflated predictions about the humanitarian consequences of combat, just as it had earlier refused to accept the huge figures which opponents of sanctions gave for infant deaths. It refused to join in the chorus of demands from voluntary organizations for the UN to play a leading role in organizing and assuring relief in Iraq, noting how far beyond UN capacities that role was.
And as Rony Brauman and Pierre Salignon write in their contribution, it grasped very early that there was no humanitarian crisis in Iraq. "No humanitarian organization could serenely countenance the frightening disproportion between the budgets allotted to humanitarian aid in Iraq, which has few urgent needs, and the paltriness of the sums available for critical situations, notably in West and Central Africa."
The phrase humanitarian crisis is "a curious term," the same authors note, which "in one context ... permits the response to be confined purely to relief, like during the genocide in Rwanda; in another it justifies military intervention as in Kosovo," or, as in Iraq now, the diversion, for political reasons, of resources to a country which is relatively well-off.
This book is an aid to clearer thinking in an era in which, as David Rieff argues in his essay, states have decided that "humanitarianism is too important to be left to humanitarians."
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS