Aligning Humanitarian Actions and Development

Abstract

Humanitarian action is reviewed including creation of the League of Nations and United Nations Organisation following the World Wars and ensuing geopolitical world orders. Between 1945 and 91, humanitarian action and law remained circumscribed by the geopolitical parameters of the Cold War. With implosion of the Soviet system (1991–2003), there was greater hope for people-centred humanitarian mechanisms, as in the UN Responsibility to Protect Principle (R2P) promoting a citizen, people-centred sovereignty and establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The 2001, 9/11 attacks on the USA and War on Terror critically impacted on the humanitarian landscape. Hyper-globalization created greater tensions between UN inter-state actions within the UN, and attempted misuse of the R2P. The perceived corporatization of humanitarian aid, along with mission creep and role confusion, were compounded by the War on Terror. This created defies for the humanitarian community, with workers on the ground being targeted by belligerents. The limited success of pacification and democracy-building in Afghanistan (2001 on) and Iraq (2003 on) contributed to further destabilization, and increase in jihadism. The 2007 economic crash, and global institutional mantra of Western-style democracy, neo-liberal economics, and austerity left many people vulnerable and disaffected. Nonetheless, the imperative of humanitarianism, impartiality, neutrality and independence remains central to humanitarian organizations where the Hippocratic standpoint of ‘do not harm’ is embedded. That has to be juxtaposed with the nexus of hazard, vulnerability and risk, depending on interplay of geographies and geopolitics in natural, human-made, technological and complex emergency situations.

1 Introduction

Here, humanitarian action is explored, from the 19th century to the establishment of the League of Nations (1920), followed by the creation of the UN (1945). Between 1945 and 91, humanitarian law and action remained largely circumscribed by the geopolitical parameters of the Cold War. With the implosion of Russian—Soviet system (1991–2003), geopolitical changes reshaped the humanitarian roadmap leading to greater hope for people-centred humanitarian action mechanisms, embodied in the UN Responsibility to Protect Principle (R2P) promoting citizen, people-centred sovereignty in contrast to the historical state-centric international system of law. A momentous achievement in progressing humanitarian law came in 2002, with the established of the International Criminal Court (ICC) , sending a strong message that individuals could no longer hide behind traditional concepts of state sovereignty and immunity. But the 2001, 9/11 attacks on the USA and War on Terror impacted critically on the humanitarian landscape.¹

From 2003 on, hyper-globalization created greater tensions between UN multilateral—collective inter-state action principles within the UN, and attempted misuse of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle by some states. The real, or perceived corporatization of humanitarian aid and many NGOs, along with mission creep and role confusion, was compounded by the experiences of the War on Terror. This created further defies for the humanitarian community, and also IFRC (commonly called the Red Cross) and other humanitarian organizations being targeted by belligerents. The limited success of pacification and democracy building in Afghanistan (2001 on) and Iraq (2003 on) contributed to destabilization of the Arab Muslim world, and rise of the jihadism. The economic crash in 2007, along with the global institutional mantra of Western-style democracy, neo-liberal economics, and austerity left many people vulnerable and politically disaffected.

Nonetheless, the imperative of humanitarianism, impartiality, neutrality and independence remains central to humanitarian organizations. The Hippocratic standpoint of ‘do not harm’ is embedded in their work, that has to be juxtaposed with the nexus of hazard, vulnerability and risk, depending on the interplay of geographies and geopolitics.²

According to Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) reports, poverty and vulnerability to crises are essentially linked as international assistance continues to go predominantly to long-term recipients.³ The UN Human Development Index (HDI) provides a key starting point in assessing population vulnerability.⁴

Geographers contribute to vulnerability mapping.⁵ A vulnerability map gives the precise location of areas and sites where people, the natural environment and property are at risk due to a potential catastrophic event that could result in death, injury, pollution or destruction. Such maps are made in conjunction with data about different types of risks. The UN’s Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (VAM) Unit is an internal structure within the World Food Program (WFP) that provides temporary and long-term technical assistance in food security analysis to decision-makers at the WFP Headquarters in Rome and in WFP Regional and Country Offices.⁶ The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030) was the first main agreement of the post-2015 Millennium Development Goals (MDG) development agenda, with seven targets and four priorities for action, and was endorsed by the UN General Assembly—2015 Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (WCDRR).⁷

1.1 Defining Humanitarism

Humanitarian action targets saving human life, alleviating suffering, respecting the dignity of people affected by natural and human made catastrophes, and variations of these. Often delivered in emergency situations, humanitarian action aims at implementing prevention strategies such as avoiding food shortages from turning into famine, or local conflicts becoming wide scale war, or combinations of both of the latter as witnessed in the Horn of Africa over the past 30 years and currently in Yemen. Hence humanitarian activities intersect with other structural actions and organization directly linked to development challenges. Humanitarian action responds to needs in situations of conflict or natural disasters and supports displaced populations in crises, along with risk reduction and preparedness, early recovery, livelihood provision, conflict resolution and peace-building.

Due to accelerated internationalization and globalization especially since the 1990s, efforts of humanitarian stakeholders have become interlinked in various combinations of states, IGOs (Intergovernmental Organizations), non-governmental organisations (NGOs, and non-profit organizations), international agencies such as the Red Cross—Red Crescent Movement (IFRC)—into a system. This is interconnected to the level of finances, operations, personnel and values in the interest of human security. Multiplication of humanitarian stakeholders , organizations, donors and agenda since the early 1990s has created challenges for many NGOs, and for those people in crisis situations receiving the aid. Central to all this are the principles of humanitarianism: (i) impartiality or treating all people equally, (ii) neutrality—not politically supporting or helping protagonists in a conflict, and (iii) independence of decision and action which may become confused in the public perception of both recipients and donors alike.⁸

Professor Elie Wiesel (1928–2016), Nobel Laureate and Nazi concentration camp survivor tells us that: “Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion or political views, that place must—at that moment—become the centre of the universe”.⁹ While philosopher George Santayana (1863–1952) states that: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” and Edmund Burke (1729–1797) posits that: “People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors”.¹⁰ In the context of the above standpoints a brief historical perspective will support a greater understanding of current humanitarian action, contexts, organization and law.

1.2 Humanitarian Action: Past and Present

From historical and cultural anthropological standpoints, assistance—including alms and charity—given to human beings in need has a long tradition in many cultures and its interpretation is often contested. Basic questions vis-à-vis spontaneous or innate human empathy between people often become subsumed into debates which are over-focused on ideological, cultural or religious frameworks, interpretations and discourses. The central question in looking at such problematic narratives, is the cultural, or ideological, or religious obligation to give assistance confined to one’s own kin, or to people of the same cultural or religious tradition, or else is it universal for all humanity.

In the historical Christian tradition, assistance is for all humanity; albeit part of Christianity’s universalizing philosophy and evangelizing practices. Similarly, Zakat (charity) is one of the Pillars of Islam, historically supporting social institutions such as hospitals and schools, and offering hospitality, food and accommodation to the traveller, and stranger, and those in distress including refugees regardless of religious persuasion. Like Christianity, Islam is a universalizing system that believes its message and principles are for all human beings and so it has missionary and diffusion mechanisms also.¹¹

Christian religious orders played a critical role in working with the poor and in the development of schools, hospices and hospitals throughout Europe, and from the 18th and 19th centuries on in other areas of the world including the Americas, Africa and Asia. With the Age of Enlightenment (1650–1800), philosophical discourses somewhat changed focus from a Christian charity or duty perspective to a standpoint that people should be aided firstly due to being human beings, without a religious interpretation, and that social or humanitarian actions should form part of the social contract in human power relations. This standpoint was enhanced with the growth of socialist ideologies within European states in the 19th and 20th centuries, and by association in many anti-colonial policies and liberation movements, and the Non-Alignment Movement of countries in the emerging Newly Independent Countries in the 20th century.

Major periods in the modern history of humanitarian action include:

• (i) 19th century until the end of the WWI (1918): European cultural and legal conceptions were created due to increased inter-state competition and contact that drove the need for humanitarian action. A watershed event was the foundation of the Red Cross in 1863, spearheaded by Henri Dunant, which heralded the modern era of humanitarian action and law.

• (ii) Formation of the League of Nations (1920)—WWII (1939−46): Having witnessed the destruction of WWI and gaining insights into the mechanization of conflict, international government was born with the League, being seen as an absolute necessity in order to attenuate and avoid future conflict. But despite its many successes, the horrors of WWII were witnessed. Nonetheless, international government reasserted itself again with the creation of the United Nations in 1945.

• (iii) Cold War period (1947–91): Bipolar US-Soviet Union competition set the geopolitical landscape for conflict, while the majority of former colonies or NICs became politically sovereign. Humanitarian actors turned more towards the non-Western world and the development paradigm was created, encouraged by US President Harry Truman’s inaugural UN address in 1949 stating that: “we must embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas”.¹² Nigeria’s Biafra War (1967–70) and associated famine was a prominent event that many analysts reference as a landmark period in history witnessing the state hiding behind the sovereignty principle to the detriment of its own Biafran citizens, and the consequent politicisation of the international public and NGOs regarding civil war, human-made famine and the role of the state system in this. This gave rise to the establishment of many NGOs in the following decade, and their taking more political stances especially in lobbying and other pro-active roles.

• (iv) Post-Cold War period (1991–2003): with the implosion of the Russian Soviet system, geopolitical changes reshaped the humanitarian roadmap leading to much hope for more positive humanitarian action mechanisms, and also witnessed the genesis of the UN Responsibility to Protect Principle (R2P) emphasizing a more people-centred sovereignty than a state-centric international law system. In 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established with its international tribunal that has jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, sending strong signals that individuals could no longer hide behind traditional concepts of state sovereignty and immunity. This was especially welcomed by the humanitarian community. However in 2001, the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the USA and subsequent events including the War on Terror impacted greatly on the humanitarian landscape.¹³

• (v) Hyper-globalization period (2003 on): Here we witness further tensions between UN multilateral or collective state security action principles within the UN General Assembly and Security Council, along with political abstruseness, and attempted misuse of the evolving R2P principle by some states to justify their own military actions in the name of humanitarism. Also the real or imagined corporatization of humanitarian aid and many big NGOs (BINGOS), along with mission creep and role confusion. This compounded the experiences of the War on Terrorism leading to imbroglios especially in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen, and destabilization wrought by jihadists, ranging from the MENA countries, to West Africa with Boko Haram, and attacks on Russia, EU and USA. This all posed challenges for the aid community’s core mandate, along with humanitarian organizations and personnel being targeted. With this, the global recession starting in 2007, and rise in identity politics, and institutional mantra of Western-style democracy, neo-liberal economic models, and austerity left many citizens disaffected.

With the ever-increasing media and live coverage of humanitarian narratives , many citizens may experience empathy or horror, or donor fatigue, and just switch off. Seizing on this, terrorist groups operating at local and international scales and virtually, have seriously challenged the positive work being done by humanitarian actors including using armed attacks on them and kidnappings for propaganda and financial purposes. The Russian annexation of Crimea (2014), and the USA’s ambiguous and sometimes anti-multilateralism approaches to international institutions and issues since 2016 has sent double-edged hawkish messages to state and non-state actors worldwide, that force and violence are legitimate and can offer solutions.

• National and international solidary

Expressions of national and international solidary became more common regarding humanitarian emergencies from the 1970s on. This was facilitated by vast changes in media as illustrated with Michael Buerk’s BBC landmark moment on crisis reporting in Ethiopia in 1984 alerting the world to major famine.¹⁴ In 1985, pop stars Bob Geldof and James “Midge” Ure initiated the dual located London and Philadelphia Live Aid concerts to raise money and awareness for the Ethiopian famine that inspired similar and smaller events in other countries ranging from Australia to Ireland. It was one of the largest-scale satellite link-ups and television broadcasts of all time. An estimated global audience of 1.9 billion, across 150 countries watched it.¹⁵ With hindsight, several critics posited that the political regime in Ethiopia manipulated aspects of the emergency aid to gain tactical advantage in their geopolitical territorial strategies for ethnic-population clearance and transfers.

The combination of revolutions in mass and social media technologies and popular culture have played critical roles in bringing humanitarian action issues to ever greater global audiences and electorates in democracies, and non-democratic countries alike putting more pressure on governments to take action. This is exemplified by the lobbying of pop stars such as U2’s Bono regarding the UN development programs and implementation of the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) and their follow-up policies (SDGs—Sustainable Development Goals) after 2015. Along with this, the engagement of celebrities from many areas including sports and cinema personalities has greatly raised awareness about humanitarian issues and justice as with Angelina Jolie’s work with refugees and the UNHCR, and direction of the movie First They Killed My Father (2017) dealing with the Cambodian genocide (1975–79).¹⁶

Ordinary people were exposed to popular movies such as Blood Diamonds (2006, Edward Zwick) and Hotel Rwanda (2004, Terry George) demonstrating that humanitarian disasters don’t just happen, but that they are often human-made in socio-economic constructs. Equally, in 2012 within four days of the launch of campaign on social media by an NGO targeting Joseph Kony , leader of the infamous Lord’s Resistance Army , for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Uganda, South Sudan, Central African Republic and Democratic Republic of Congo, it had generated more than 44.7 million views and over 170 related video clips, and twitter users mentioned Kony over 950,000 times.¹⁷ Worldwide, children and especially adolescents were empathizing with the plight of the kids under the control of the Lord’s Resistance Army and engaging not only virtually, but in the iconic graffiti and emblem campaigns, demanding justice.

However, revolutions in media were not only impacting on populations in the industrialized economies and democracies, as witnessed with the use of the Internet, Facebook, iPhone and so forth in the diffusion of information and impact on actions of young people during the Arab Spring revolutions starting in 2010 in Tunisia and diffusing to Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Palestinian Territories, Syria and other countries with massive street protests, and conflict with state authorities, but also bringing about relatively non-violent changes as in Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Saudi Arabia.¹⁸ Similarly, analysts will certainly see the crisis in Europe starting in 2014, with the inflow of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees from Syria, neighbouring states, and other countries such as Eritrea being fuelled by social media, and their outcomes as a landmark period in the history of humanitarian action and evolving policies. Data regarding the impact of live and social media on populations fleeing from conflict and war zone countries such as Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan and elsewhere to Europe has yet to be measured, as well as the impact of similar media on European states and their populations, through which the migrants are travelling or being hosted there.¹⁹

During the 1990s, due to the end of the Cold War (1947–91) which had impeded many of the founding aspirations of the UN for better conditions for humanity, the geopolitical map of the world and balance of fears and powers changed, giving greater space for humanitarian actors and ideals. However, the restricted success of development programs and projects was often challenged by a huge increase in identity politics and conflicts ranging from the Yugoslav Wars (1991–2001) to the Rwandan genocide (1994), and wars in Chechnya (1994–2003), West African countries and Africa’s Great Lakes region from the 1990s on. Many of the neo-liberal political-economic programs and structural reforms of the global financial institutions, led by the World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund) were out of kilter with the daily realities of ordinary citizens on the ground as witnessed with the unequal impacts of the global financial crash in 2007, leading to an increase in poverty within and between countries, and the Western concept of global security , largely steered humanitarian action, like development aid funding into the discourse of rapid action in favour of peace and security.

Major challenges for humanitarian action NGOs include: maintaining their unique position working in humanitarian emergency situations, but having greater foundation training in areas ranging from humanitarian law to public health, geopolitics, geography and anthropology, languages and communications, and food sciences, and being connected to holistic sustainable development perspectives. This is essential as humanitarian emergencies cause an interruption in the development process but cannot be seen as an end point, having to start the development process from zero again. Humanitarian organizations and workers remain compelled to liaise with other professionals whether state or non-state actors.²⁰ While there are several categories of humanitarian disasters including natural, here emphasis is placed on human-made emergencies due especially to violent conflict.

1.3 Geographical Contexts and Development Levels

The negative impact of any humanitarian crisis or disaster is directly proportionate to the levels of vulnerability of the populations affected. Exposure of human beings to danger and susceptibility to losses is compounded by the level of individual, family, community and national poverty and constraints on coping capacities at micro, mezzo and macro levels of development. Poverty levels directly impact on the ability of individuals, families, and groups to survive and also state authorities to cope with crises. This exists not only between countries as with the differing impact of storms, flooding and conflict in the USA and neighbouring Caribbean and Gulf countries; and China, Bangladesh and the Philippines in recent decades. It also exists within countries, regions and socio-economic classes. This became particularly evident with the impacts of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, Florida, USA in 2005 and on the short and long term affects it had on individuals and families and communities. In this example, there is a correlation between socio-economic classes and ethnicity related to specific low-lying less expensive housing areas with majority African-American and Hispanic populations.²¹ While such measures and rankings as the UNDP HDI (Human Development Index) and EIU Democracy Index (Economist Intelligence Unit) are important for cross country comparisons regarding development levels and capacities, the specific physical and human geographies and geographical scales of place, area and population at risk is vital in dealing with crises, and especially in enhancing Early Warning Systems, vulnerability mapping and targeted policies.

Each emergency has its physical and human geographies, and is located in a specific place (land and sea areas) and time—the mega-time calendars of geology to the human historical long and short time periods, and how, and who used, or who left their culture-print on those specific places as with Hutu, Tutsi and Belgians in 19th–20th century Rwanda, and the 100 days of the genocide in 1994. Regarding geographical space and time analyses, other salient humanitarian disaster examples in recent history include Haiti over the past three decades, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (1997–2003). Hence the specific location and territorialisation aspects of individual emergencies that also entails geopolitics and power relations between people. The geopolitics of humanitarian emergencies and disasters is related to the inter-relationships between geography and political-economy, and its impact on organization within states and between them, and how this impacts on international reactions and politics.

• Humanitarianism, Impartiality, Neutrality and Independence

Here the following concepts are assessed:

• Humanitarian action: humanitarianism, impartiality, neutrality and independence

• The spectrum, and worst humanitarian crises

• The main categories of humanitarian crises and disasters: natural, human-made, technological and complex

• Hazard, vulnerability and risk: Vulnerability + Risk => Disaster

• The interplay of physical and human geographical phenomena.

Humanitarianism can be defined as a belief in the duty to help other human beings. It is a philosophical doctrine holding that it is a human being’s duty to improve the lives of other people. A humanitarian crisis is an event or series of events, which represents a critical threat to the health, safety, security, or wellbeing of a community or other large group of people, usually over a wide geographical area. Armed conflict, epidemics, famine, and natural and technological disasters, and other major emergencies may all involve or lead to a crisis.²²

Humanitarian assistance is action taken by governments, agencies or citizens aimed at saving lives, alleviating suffering and maintaining human dignity of people in need. This is driven by the principles of humanitarianism: impartiality (treating all people equally), neutrality (not supporting, or helping either side in a conflict) and independence (of decision and action) as promoted by the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). Note that increasingly, many NGOs find the neutrality principle particularly challenging and have become more outspoken on political issues in the public arena; a significant example being Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF—Doctors without Borders), while Freedom House and Amnesty International are at the forefront in denouncing parties to conflicts whether state actors or other groups, as witnessed in Sudan, Somalia, Iraq and Syria over the past 25 years. The independence principle may also be challenging for NGOs due to the sourcing of their finances, not only from the public but especially from state donors including ministries of foreign affairs and similar top-down institutions. Humanitarianism covers both humanitarian action and assistance, the former being the protection of civilians and provision of vital services by aid agencies during and after disasters, while the latter pertains to the provision of funding or in-kind services, including logistics or transport, in response to humanitarian crises usually through humanitarian agencies or government of the affected country.

2 The Major Categories of Humanitarian Disasters

While there are various classification systems, there is no single definitive categorization system for humanitarian crises. Different communities and agencies tend to have definitions regarding the existing situations they face. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) uses categories which include different types: (i) natural disasters such as tsunami; (ii) human-made disasters, regarding civil strife and conflict, civil and international war; (iii) technological disasters such as hazardous material spills, nuclear accidents, and chemical explosions. The humanitarian response sector distinguishes between natural disasters such as earthquakes, and (iv) complex emergencies, where the effects of natural disasters may be compounded by conflict and war, or technological dangers.²³

Well known humanitarian crises include the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and consequent tsunami which hit Indonesia, Sri Lanka , India, Thailand, the Maldives and Somalia . Also the Kashmir (2005) and Haiti (2010) earthquakes; the Rwanda (1994) and Rohingya (2017) genocides, Sri Lankan rebellion and civil war (1983–2009), Darfur Conflict (2003-), Wars in Iraq (2003–18) and Syria (2011–19).²⁴

According to the NGO, World Vision, among the top 10 worst humanitarian crises in 2015 were²⁵:

• Nepal earthquake

• Syrian refugee crisis

• Iraq displacement

• West Africa Ebola outbreak

• South Sudan conflict

• Somalia drought

• Central American drought

• Central African Republic violence.

While migrant and refugee movement to EU states via the Mediterranean, Turkey, Balkans, and Central and Eastern Europe created major long term implications.²⁶

In summary, the main categories of humanitarian disasters include:

• (a) Natural disasters ²⁷ that encompass earthquakes—especially in the Pacific Rim and Himalaya regions, Haiti, Japan, Indonesia; droughts as seen in the semi-arid African Sahel countries located between the Sahara desert to the North and Savannah grasslands to the South, including extending regions from Mauritania and Senegal through Mali, Northern Burkina Faso, Niger, Northern Nigeria and Chad to Sudan and Eritrea. Flooding as in India, Bangladesh, China, Vietnam, Myanmar, Egypt, Nigeria, DRC, Angola, and Brazil. Also earthquakes and tsunami as with Japan in 2011 and Chile in 2015. Here must be noted typhoons or tropical storms, endangering the Philippines, Taiwan, Japan, India, USA and others. Changing weather patterns due especially to global warming, and also the effects of El Nino impacting on ecology, and consequently human populations is of major importance.²⁸ Disease includes Ebola as experienced in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia (2013–14), as well as epidemics and pandemics including influenza, malaria, Zika fever and so forth.²⁹

• (b) Human-made disasters : these are due to political activities and include conflict and war, such as civil strife within a country and, or inter-state war—as experienced in Syria, Afghanistan and West Africa in recent decades. Dangers include use of nuclear weapons as with threats from North Korea and Iran, and also biological and chemical weapon usage as witnessed in the Halabja Massacre of Kurdish people by the Iraqi armed forces in 1988. Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War (starting in 2011) was confirmed by the United Nations as early as 2013 with the Ghouta attack in the suburbs of Damascus and the Khan al-Assal attack in the suburbs of Aleppo.

  Massive human rights abuses are perpetrated, or condoned by dictatorial or corrupt regimes as in Myanmar with military rule from 1962 to 2015, and again in 2017, or terrorist group activities such as the Boko Haram Jihadi in Nigeria and neighbouring countries, or Daesh operations in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey and other regional states, and also targeting people and places in Europe, USA, Indonesia and so forth.³⁰

• (c) Technological ³¹: This category includes nuclear accidents, such as the Chernobyl Power Plant accident in Ukraine (1986) and toxic chemical explosions as with the Bhopal disaster (1984) in India. Regarding Bhopal, the Union Carbide India Limited (with the US based transnational Union Carbide Corporation holding a 50.9% share in UCIL)—pesticide factory explosion resulted in over 500,000 people being exposed to methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas and other chemicals that made their way into the shanty towns located near the plant causing a humanitarian disaster with long term repercussions on the people of the area. Also included in this category is toxic waste as with the classic example of the Love Canal scandal that took place in the Niagara Falls area New York state in the USA in 1970s. All of the above examples had detrimental effects on the ecosystem and long-term effects on the human populations there.³²

• (d) Complex emergencies and disasters : this includes any combination of the above listed categories—(a)–(c). For example, a combination of natural and human-made disasters was witnessed in the long running separatist Aceh province rebellion in Indonesia combined with the effects of the 2004 tsunami. Other examples include the Tamil guerrilla war in Sri Lanka (1983–2009) combined with the effects of the horrific 2004 tsunami. Political conflict, massive human rights abuses, bad governance, war, rape and HIV/AIDS have been witnessed in conflicts in the DR Congo and Liberia and neighbouring states in recent decades. The effects of global warming, drought, famine and war have been witnessed in Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan and Republic of South Sudan from the 1980s on. Combinations of military dictatorship, massive human rights abuse and flooding caused by tropical cyclone Nargis were witnessed in Myanmar in 2008. Similarly, dictatorship, human rights abuses and starvation were witnessed in North Korea, especially during the 1994–98 famine. Here must be noted the mixture of natural and technological crises, with earthquakes in the Pacific Ocean causing a tsunami and triggering a nuclear accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, Japan in 2011. Regarding complex emergencies, humanitarian workers and organizations are supported with data and lobbying from NGOs on the ground, but also internationally from Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as the International Crisis Group (IIC), and governmental institutions such as those of the UN.

Fear of, and planning for, a major complex humanitarian disaster including combinations of factors from categories (a) + (b) + (c) listed above form part of the humanitarian remit; as with the unfolding geopolitical narratives in North Korea, Syria and Iran. In order to attenuate the possible impact of humanitarian disasters on any area or region, intelligence and early warning systems are necessary that must take into account the hazard, vulnerability and risk.³³ Geographical data, competencies and skills including GIS and vulnerability mapping play major roles here.³⁴

3 Defining Hazards, Vulnerability and Risk

Hazards : They represent a potential threat to human beings and their welfare such as living in an earthquake zone including the Pacific Rim countries; climate change causing rising sea levels and especially the implications of this for low lying territories such as the Republic of Maldives, and populations in Bangladesh and Bengal Bay region. Political hazards include the possibility of conflict spreading from its local or regional level to national and international scales as with bad governance and human rights abuses as witnessed by the crises in Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan and Syria over the past decades.

Vulnerability : This relates to exposure of human beings to danger, and susceptibility to losses, and is compounded by the level of individual, family, community and national poverty and restraints on coping capacities at micro, mezzo and macro levels of development. The level of poverty has a direct impact on the ability of individuals, families, and groups to survive. Some analysts argue that concepts of poverty and of wellbeing are highly intertwined. Generally, the highest levels of hazards and vulnerabilities are found in the Global South , in the Newly Independent Countries.³⁵

Risk : This refers to the probability of the occurrence of the event—natural, human-made, technological or complex. Vulnerability added to risk leads to disaster—or the realisation of the risk.³⁶

Disasters are seen as the consequence of inappropriately managed risk. These risks are the product of hazards and vulnerability. Hazards that strike in areas with low vulnerability are not usually considered a disaster. NICs suffer the greatest costs when a disaster hits—more than 95 percent of all deaths caused by disasters occur in developing countries, and losses due to natural disasters are 20 times greater (as a percentage of GDP) in developing countries, than in industrialized states. Essentially a humanitarian disaster is an event that has severe impacts on the functioning of a particular community or society causing widespread human, material, social and economic, and environmental losses and stress which exceed the ability of the people affected to cope using their own resources.

It must be stressed that the human input in action or lack of it, decision making and planning is core to any humanitarian crisis and its resulting magnitude as with the number of deaths, and level of destruction. However, it should be noted, that in crisis locations, most humanitarian action and aid is delivered by family networks and local communities themselves despite the images and impressions of ‘helpless victims’ often projected by the media. A humanitarian crisis cannot be separated from the above factors and it is impossible to address the risk posed by a hazard escalating into a full blown disaster without first addressing the root causes, such as levels of development and conditions of vulnerability.³⁷

This nexus becomes particularly clear in the context of armed conflict and war. For instance, the way one armed conflict will escalate into a humanitarian crisis, and another will not, can only be answered in view of levels of development and vulnerability of the particular community or society in question. Additionally, armed conflict has been identified as one of the key factors influencing societal underdevelopment. This has been recognized in numerous UN and international declarations and conventions. Armed conflict leads to a vicious cycle in which levels of underdevelopment contribute to the overall vulnerability of particular people. The history of humanitarian crises and disasters in Sudan since 1956, and the new Republic of South Sudan created in 2011, as well as Haiti, provide striking examples of cycles of conflict, underdevelopment and disaster.

4 Poverty, Vulnerability and Humanitarian Crises

According to Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) reports, they show that poverty and vulnerability to crises are intrinsically linked and that international humanitarian assistance continues to go predominantly to long-term recipients. This emphasises the need to build resilience, address the underlying causes of crisis and meet the long-term needs of people affected by crises. Two thirds (66%) of international humanitarian assistance continues to go to long-term recipients such as Syria, Somalia and Pakistan, as crises are protracted or disasters recur in the same places year on year. An estimated 93% of people living in extreme poverty (defined as less than US$1.25 a day) are in countries that are either fragile or environmentally vulnerable or both, emphasising the need to address the underlying causes of crises. However, domestic response and capacities play an important role in best meeting needs and reducing the necessity for international finance, as case studies of Turkey and Mexico show.³⁸

In order to gain greater understanding of a country’s level of development, the UN Human Development Index (HDI) provides a key starting point. It gives a composite or amalgamated statistics for key indicators, in short, life expectancy, education, and income per capita, which are used to rank countries into four tiers of human development ranging from low to high. In order to assess the levels of vulnerability, statistics for individual states help illustrate the diversity of problems and also the comparative or ranking aspects of development levels. These HDI scores range from a maximum of 1 (most developed) to a minimum of 0 (least developed). Countries are normally aggregated into one of four quartiles: Very High Development Score; High Development Score; Medium Development Score; and Low Development Score. For instance, regarding the UNDP HDI Report (2017), of the 192 countries presented, in the Very High category: Norway ranked 1, Australia 2, Switzerland 3, Ireland 8, USA 10, UK 16, France 21, and Kuwait 51. In the High Development Score, Belarus ranked 52, Cuba 68, Iran 69, China 90, and Uzbekistan 105. In the Medium Development Score: Moldova ranked 107, Republic of South Africa 119, and Pakistan 147. In the Low Development Score category, Syria ranked 149, Haiti and Uganda each ranked 163, Mali 175, and Niger 187 and CAR (Central African Republic) 188.³⁹ The annual UN Human Development Report gives sharp insights into the whole development debate.⁴⁰

BOX: UNDP Human Development Reports

While there are many websites and reports, the UNDP Human Development Reports, for global, regional, national and specific theme papers offer quality research insights, see http://hdr.undp.org/en/global-reports. Concerning regional development, the UNDP Regional Human Development Reports serve as an advocacy tool to advance development of a common approach to the national and regional dimensions of governance and highlights common governance issues, as well as opportunities, challenges and threats to regional co-operation and integration. For National and Regional Human Development Reports, see http://hdr.undp.org/en/country-reports. This UN website offers a toolkit that has been written for anyone involved in writing a national or regional human development report. It offers a concise, step by step overview of the whole reporting process, from theme selection, through report preparation and project oversight, to a communication strategy.

BOX: UN and Development Data

The UNDP Human Development Report 2017 presents the Human Development Index (HDI) values and ranks for some 187 countries and UN-recognized territories, along with the Inequality-adjusted HDI for 132 countries, the Gender Inequality Index for 148 countries, and the Multidimensional Poverty Index on average for 104 countries. Country rankings and values in the annual Human Development Index (HDI) are kept under strict embargo until the global launch and worldwide electronic release of the Human Development Report.⁴¹

Such reports by their very nature, based on research, variables, aggregates and rankings, encourage both academic and practioner critiques, many of which have led to qualitative changes and emphases in the methodology and presentation of results, since the UNDP HDI was first devised in 1990, with the explicit purpose to shift the focus of development economics from national income accounting to people-cantered policies. Criticisms are made regarding the aggregate nature of the variable categories for masking important factors within countries that could lead to erroneous interpretations, while issues and variables of power and politics within societies are not adequately included. It could be argued that despite UN HDI results, there is lack of a clear mandate for inter-governmental agencies to name and shame countries, or to support and strengthen them, especially regarding capacity building.⁴²

5 Responses to Humanitarian Disasters

Humanitarian action strives to protect people’s livelihoods and help affected communities and countries cope with refugees and displaced people. Responding effectively requires expert analysis of the situation, and ability to work with all necessary partners—local, national and international—to ensure aid is delivered to those most in need.

The Sphere Project was launched in 1997 by a group of humanitarian NGOs and the IFRC (International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement). Sphere is based on two core beliefs: that all possible steps should be taken to alleviate human suffering arising out of calamity and conflict, and that those affected by disaster have a right to life with dignity and therefore a right to assistance.⁴³ Regarding disaster management, the IFRC remains the major model.⁴⁴

The EU-based INFORM is the open-source risk assessment tool for humanitarian crises. INFORM (Index for Risk Management) is to support decisions about prevention, preparedness and response, helping humanitarian actors to align their actions in order to reduce crisis and disaster risk and to build resilience. It is the result of joint efforts of a partnership of international organisations and governments. Other important resources include UNISDR Prevention Web—UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR); the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE Relief Web, and US—National Institute of Health.⁴⁵

• The stakeholders in a humanitarian disaster include:

• The local people directly involved—those affected and those ‘locals’ helping.

• The affected population’s neighbour communities, and, or their host communities in the case of internal displacement within the state— IDPs —Internally Displaced Persons. Refugees fleeing to adjacent neighbouring countries in close proximity to their own but crossing an international boundary as with people who often have close ethnic linkages or cultures, or intermarriage bonds such as people fleeing from Darfur in Sudan to Chad (2003-04), and flows of Hutu and Tutsi populations between Rwanda, Burundi, DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo) and all neighbouring countries during crises over the past 30 years. And of course asylum seekers and refugees who flee farther afield as with Syrian, Iraqi, Eritrean and Afghani citizens seeking refuge in Germany, Sweden, Belgium and all EU states.

• State actors in the country where the disaster occurs including regional and national government.

• Neighbouring states, as with Bangladesh receiving Rohingya people in flight from Myanmar during the 2017–18 crisis.

• International and inter-state organisations, this includes State and non-state actors. Examples of top-down organizations include the UNHCR (UN High Commission for Refugees), WHO (UN World Health Organization), EU-ECHO (EU European Communities Humanitarian Office Officials), UN Blue Beret missions, and AU (African Union) forces. Examples of bottom-up organisations , and especially NGOs include (a) local e.g. charitable organisations and development groups, (b) national—as with the Red Cross, or Centre for Advancement of Democracy, Social Justice, Conflict Resolution and Human Welfare in Nigeria, and (c) international NGOs, INGOs, and BINGOs such as MSF (Doctors Without Borders), Save the Children, Oxfam and Trócaire, AmeriCares, Gates Foundation, Relief International, Engineers without Borders and so forth.⁴⁶

• Foreign actors, with vested geo-strategic, political and economic interests which may be overt or covert in their activities in the affected country. These can be at the level of foreign states such as Indian or Pakistani interests in neighbouring countries, or the USA and UK in relation to their security, and oil and gas energy supply policies in Iraq and Syria and the MENA (Middle East and North African) countries in general, or Turkish and Russian interests in Syria and especially the Kurdish region. Similarly, multinational companies or TNCs (transnational corporations) with targeted economic interests whether oil in Iraq, or coltan in the DRC or Mozambique. Coltan is much sought after, being highly valuable as a metallic mineral which is a combination of columbite and tantalite and which is refined to produce tantalum, and is used in cell phones, laptops, pagers and other electronic devices.

• Local, national or international—warlords, criminal cartels, gangs, traffickers and so forth, as witnessed over the past decades in Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Republic of South Sudan, Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

• The media and witnesses: professional journalists and reporters from local to international scales, but more and more the non-professional individual on the ground in the form of citizen journalists , due to use of social media and mobile phones.

• The public, especially electorates at national and international scales, who can influence foreign policy decisions, especially in the mature democracies such as the USA, Canada and EU.

6 Conclusions

The humanitarian tradition in many cultures, civilizations and religions has a long disputed history, with the kernel question being is it based on emotion and empathy for all humankind, or is it exclusive to people of the same culture, or is it a religious obligation. Here arise issues of fundamental attitudes: is a major cause of human vulnerability like poverty, and disaster ‘an act of God’ to be accepted as such and where is the role of human agency, power and socio-political structures in all this. Though rarely articulated, sometimes iterations of Darwinism cannot be completely ignored regarding levels of response to the emergency.

The suffering and death of combatants witnessed by the lawyer Henri Dunant, after the Battle of Solferino (1859) is often given as a landmark factor stimulating creation of the Red Cross and development of humanitarian law with the Geneva Convention (1864), the first codified international treaty that covered the sick and wounded soldiers on the battlefield. This was followed by other Conventions regarding neutrality and so forth. The debacle of WWI, necessitated stronger international law and subsequent creation of the League of Nations (1920), the first major attempt at global government . Following WWII and creation of the UN (1945), there was hope for greater inter-state cooperation, development and elimination of conflict. However, this was restricted by the geopolitical parameters of the Cold War (1945–91). Following the implosion of Soviet system (1991–2003), geopolitical changes reshaped the humanitarian map leading to hope for people-centred humanitarian action mechanisms, embodied in the UN Responsibility to Protect Principle (R2P) and establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) (2002). The 2001, 9/11 attacks on the USA and consequent War on Terror impacted critically on the humanitarian landscape.⁴⁷

Simultaneously was witnessed hyper-globalization and tensions within the UN multilateral—collective inter-state action principles, and attempted abuses of the evolving Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle. Corporatization of humanitarian aid and many NGOs, along with mission creep and role confusion, added greater challenges for the humanitarian actors, including workers being targeted by belligerents. The global economic crash (2007), along with the institutional mantra of Western-style democracy, neo-liberal economics, and austerity left many people vulnerable and disaffected. Nonetheless, the humanitarian imperative: impartiality, neutrality and independence remains central to humanitarian organizations in the nexus of hazard, vulnerability and risk, and interplay of geographies and geopolitics.⁴⁸

Humanitarian assistance continues to go primarily to the same long-term recipients, due to poverty and vulnerability as illustrated in the UN Human Development Index (HDI) and by vulnerability mapping.⁴⁹ The UN’s Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (VAM) Unit, of the World Food Program (WFP) provides major food security analyses to decision-makers.⁵⁰ The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030) was the first main agreement of the post-2015 Millennium Development Goals (MDG) agenda being endorsed by the UN General Assembly—2015 Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (WCDRR).⁵¹

Expressions of national and international solidary became more common regarding emergencies from the 1970s on being facilitated by revolutions in media and popular culture, especially witnessed during the Ethiopian Famine (1984–85).⁵² Popular culture has played a critical role in bringing humanitarian issues to greater global audiences and electorates forcing governments to take action in emergencies and from longer term perspectives as with the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) and SDGs—Sustainable Development Goals. Here there is greater popular and official recognition that development levels and specific geographical contexts must be catered for in policy, not alone from the purely humanitarian viewpoint, but also from the standpoint of security for all countries and peoples, as the negative impact of any humanitarian disaster is directly proportionate to the levels of vulnerability of the populations affected. This trajectory from crises to disasters and their ripple effects is evident in the narratives of Syria, Yemen and the DRC. Exposure of human beings to danger and susceptibility to losses is compounded by the level of individual, family, community and national poverty and constraints on coping capacities at family, kinship, community and national levels of development, whether due to natural, human-made, technological or complex emergencies.

Responses to humanitarian crises effectively requires expert analysis of the situation, and ability to work with all stakeholders—local, national and international—to ensure aid is delivered to those most in need. Examples include, the Sphere Project launched by NGOs and IFRC that is based on core beliefs: that all steps should be taken to alleviate human suffering arising out of conflict, and that those affected by disaster have a right to life with dignity and therefore a right to assistance.⁵³ The Red cross (IFRC) continues to provide a major model for disaster management.⁵⁴