In an interesting article on Foreign Affairs, Michael Young writes about the inefficiencies of humanitarian aid distributed via military or security firms in his piece entitled "Development at Gunpoint." He calls this "militarized aid." Young makes the case for aid being distributed solely by NGOs or organizations unrelated to the military because in this way the organization can be impartial to those it serves and those it serves will not be seen as a collaborator with the the 'enemy' force. Further he says that militarized aid damages the stabilization effort in the area. Militarized aid is nothing new; the US military has been known for giving out food and water to effected populations during wartime activities. But militarized aid is new in this concept, because it encompasses activities more than distributing food and water, but rebuilding towns and communities.
The question to be asked is whether aid should be administered no matter what or by who or if it should only be administered if it is not un-stabilizing. In short, is aid from a military better than no aid? I believe that aid from anyone is better than no aid at all, even if aid comes from an extremist group, because although there may be propaganda tied to to the service, at least an effected population is getting help. Young says that there should be a civilian space that is more receptive to unbiased aid. This is true, and if safe havens could be established, like those set up in Sri Lanka and Bosnia during wars in the 1990s, then this discussion would be over. But safe havens are not always feasible, in fact, most of the time they are not. For instance, Somalia could benefit from a safe haven but there is no conceivable way a safe, impartial, civilian space could be created due to the large presence of al Shabaab and Hizbul Islam. The current wars are more dangerous than those previous, and the civilian space with NGOs do not really exist anymore.
Moreover the community may be targeted either way, if they receive aid from a military service or from an unrelated organization. If it comes down to security, then a military or security service are probably the best service providers. The military is trained in security, one cannot always count them as inefficient aid providers. Militaries are usually better prepared and better equipped to deal with disasters or to operate in war zones. However if the warring factions can guarantee security to a given aid group, then it would be more practical for a regular aid agency to do business.
Another problem with aid in general is that it has the ability to find its way to the government of the country that requires aid. I agree with Young on this point. This is undoubtedly a problem, and yes, resources that end up in government coffers are more likely to come from another government agency than an NGO. The money that is given to the government is needed for the civilian population, but most of that money never makes it to the public. Sometimes governments can distribute money and resources through the NGO rather than the country's government, such as the US government funding the National Democratic Institute (although this is not an aid agency).
With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the forefront of aid necessity, security agencies may be better off to administer to affected populations, but to care for this population effectively is probably best put in the hands of NGOs and organizations unrelated to the security apparatus. Aid agencies are in it for the long haul as opposed to militaries which are bound to move on to the next location as their main goal is to win the conflict at hand (Young did not neglect this argument). But if getting aid to the needy is the primary goal, then it should not matter from whom it is from, what depends is the length of time that the affected population will need aid. Short-term would be sufficient for a military or security agency, long-term would better be situated for an NGO.
No comments:
Post a Comment