Critically Examine the Geopolitics of Humanitarian Aid Within the 21st Century.

Critically examine the geopolitics of humanitarian aid within the 21st century. How have responses to famine changed over time and what are the key challenges to famine prevention today? Geopolitics have played a huge role in humanitarian aid in the current century. Because humanitarian aid is largely sponsored by western countries it poses a huge problem in the form of a â€Å"parochial form of theorizing†1 that supports the interests of the richest countries of the world. For the purpose of this essay I will begin by examining the problems that have arisen in the most recent years of humanitarian aid assistance.This arises from conditional aid, whereby donor countries or organizations impose conditions in order for recipient countries to receive this aid. Followed by this is the secularization and polarization of the aid industry where organizations are constantly in competition for finite resources. Lastly the 21st century has seen foreign militaries carry out humanitarian aid missions which jeopardizes the neutrality and impartiality which is so essential in carrying out aid to anyone who is in need. Secondly this essay will look at how humanitarian aid has changed over time.For the purpose of this short essay I will look at the 1998 famine in North Korea whereby humanitarian aid was given, only under political concessions. Disguised as aid, the humanitarian assistance given to North Korea was used as a political tool that undermines the fundamental ideas of humanitarian aid. The basic theorizations of humanitarianism put a deep emphasis on adherence to principles of impartiality and neutrality and assistance based solely on need. Adherence to these principles has been the biggest problems of humanitarian aid over its history, but never more so than in the 21st century.Aid in recent years has been based on conditionality which essentially means that in order for nations to receive aid, these nations have to adopt conditions that that the donor nation imposes. This means that aid is not offered on the basis of those who need it, but is based on policy that supports the donors giving aid. Therefore critics see these policies, although framed as humanitarian in principle, as very far removed from humanitarian. In essence it is foreign policy that is advantageous to the donor. Some such policies that come from conditionality are trade liberalization, that can ruin domestic economies and increase unemployment, and capital account liberalization that would open less developed economies to investments from multi-national corporations. Such investments have little impact on the majority of people in these countries and generally only benefit the corporations themselves and a small group of elites in the recipient countries. This supply of aid, especially in the events of crisis is in complete contrast to the fundamental principles of humanitarian aid. One of the most problematic concerns of aid in the last ten years has been the politi cization and secularization of the aid industry. Over the last twenty five years humanitarian aid has become heavily institutionalized. This has led to more effective logistics and delivery systems. However it has also created institutions that are perhaps not so concerned with providing aid to those in need, but acting in the interests of governments or big businesses that are the donors of the resources. Humanitarian organizations such as NGO’s and now foreign military forces are often in competition with local organizations which has led to valuable resources being wasted because of constant competition for aid . 5Because of this, NGO’s neutrality (one of the most fundamental principles of humanitarian aid) is severely compromised because the boundaries between relief and development, war and peace and political objectives are not easily defined.Thus, NGO’s in these most recent years have struggled to adhere to the basic humanitarian principles of providing t o those most in need because their ideals are compromised by the secularization and politicization of aid organizations. 6 Perhaps one of the most fundamental problems of humanitarian aid in the 21st century is the fact that it is often no longer carried out by NGO’s, but is in fact coordinated by foreign military forces. In cases such as Iraq and Afghanistan the United States military assumed a huge role for the distribution of disaster and humanitarian assistance alongside their military objectives.If foreign militaries are carrying out humanitarian aid alongside military objectives, then there is no way that aid can be supplied to whoever is in need in ways that are impartial, neutral and independent. This new system whereby foreign militaries are responsible for supplying aid has created huge security problems for not only the military, but for the people who are receiving aid. Opposing factions to foreign military time and time again in Afghanistan and Iraq have targeted civilians receiving aid to further their own agenda. These are the problems that exist in the humanitarian aid industry today, but these problems have developed over a course of many years and responses to famine and humanitarian disasters have evolved over time. Thirty years ago disaster relief and humanitarian aid were not considered to be of huge significance on a geopolitical scale. During the 70’s and 80’s although humanitarian crisis existed, the geopolitics was more focused on the cold war and respecting the sovereignty of nation states.Although crisis in Africa, East Pakistan and Guatemala (to name a few) were made aware to the international community , they were sidelined by the real political concerns defined by the cold war. Throughout the 1970’s, 1980’s and even the 1990’s international opinion and more importantly international law, respected the fact that governments, even of highly prone man-made and natural disasters had the respon sibility, will, interest and ability to protect their own citizens.Any humanitarian aid that was given in these years was seen as assistance to these governments to look after their own citizens. Essentially 25 years ago, the concept of ‘humanitarian intervention’ without the concurrence of the affected state would not have been considered and certainly would not have been sanctioned by the United Nations or the International Community. 8 Since the 1980’s humanitarian aid and responses to famine have changed not only in thought, but institutionally.In the mid 1980’s there were approximately 280 governmental, intergovernmental and non-governmental aid organizations. Today that number is over 1000. As well as this huge expansion of organizations there has been a dramatic increase in aid expenditure. In the last two decades humanitarian assistance has tripled from approximately two billion to six billion dollars. 9 Because of this huge increase in the funding of aid the competition between organizations can sometimes have disastrous consequences because the organizations are competing for finite resources.This is increased by for profit organizations that are competing for lucrative humanitarian and development contracts. Many donors of aid motives are not for the needs of the people that are in need of these resources but are aligned with domestic considerations or international interests that are a world apart from the specific needs of those people affected by disaster or emergency. 10 The famine of North Korea in 1998 is a perfect example of conditional humanitarian aid, and how it is driven not by humanitarian principle, but a clever tool for geopolitical gains.The North Korean famine shows how humanitarian aid today has changed to become an important political tool in contrast to two decades ago whereby any humanitarian crisis was sidelined because of the geopolitical context of the cold war. 9 In times of famine it is important t o emphasize that the likelihood of a starving nation to accept emergency aid under any condition means that conditional aid can be seen as a political tool to establish a diplomatic, political or even military presence under the disguise of humanitarian aid. 11 This was such the case in the North Korean famine.From 1995-1998 North Korea was hit by a series of national disasters that resulted in a large scale famine. Rough estimates say that by 1998 North Korea lacked about two million tones of grain needed to feed its people. According to the world food program the rate of moderate to severe malnutrition of children in North Korea was about sixty per cent by mid 1998. 12 By mid 1998 the United States and South Korea realized that it could use the famine in North Korea as a political tool to penetrate the isolated North and offer aid on terms that benefited themselves.The United States and South Korea offered food aid on terms that North Korea had to enter into reunification and peac e talks and not break out of the 1994 agreed framework designed to end the North’s nuclear program. If the North refused to adhere to these conditions, no food aid would be given. Another condition was that the shipments of aid would be covered with stickers and logos from the United States and South Korea. Although this may seem insignificant it was a huge propaganda tool for the donor powers.It could serve as an undermining of the North Korean regime that had told its people for decades that the South and the United States were undermining their nation. 13 The slow response to give aid put the US and South Korea in a strategically advantageous situation to further its political goals. If North Korea didn’t accept United States conditions the famine would continue and the possibility of an internal break down of the state increased. If the North accepted the terms on which the donors offered, the aid functioned as an important political tool.It meant North Korea had t o give concessions and that the people of North Korea could see the failure of its regime and the kindness of the western powers that they had been told for so long were there enemies. Thus, humanitarian aid was not offered to support those people starving, but was rather used as a political tool to further the donor states own political agendas under the guise of humanitarian aid. In actual fact, the aid was so far removed from what humanitarian aid in its purest sense really was. 4 So much was this aid seen as a political tool that in 1998 the South Korean government banned non governmental groups from fundraising to support those starving in the North. 15 This is undeniable proof that political aims were the underlying focus of the ‘conditional aid’ rather than aid to help the starving North Korean population that was stricken by famine. The key challenges to famine prevention today are huge and include a combination of factors that are not easily unchanged.First of all, humanitarian aid is now such a lucrative industry that competition for contracts means that organizations are in constant competition for finite resources, the resources that are needed in times when famine strikes. Secondly, as long as foreign militaries carry out some humanitarian aid then the adherence to neutrality and impartiality that is so fundamental to the aid process is essentially undermined. Military goals will always be aligned alongside objectives that are not necessarily aligned with those of starving people.And finally, as long as conditional aid is used as a political tool, then humanitarian aid faces huge challenges. In a time when people need aid, if governments are focused on geopolitical goals and furthering their own agendas rather than helping those in times of famine then humanitarian aid is essentially a guise and is merely a political tool for donor governments to use to further their own agendas. 1 Robinson, J. (2003) ‘Postcolonising geography: tactics and pitfalls' Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography p273 2 When does aid conditionally work?Gabriella R Montinola. Studies in comparative international development, vol 45, 2010, pp 358-362 3 ibid (same ref as above) 4 International Human Crisis: two decades before and two decades beyond. Randolf C Kent. International Affairs Volume 80, issie 5, 2004 p 851-870 5 Aaltola, M. – Responding to emergencies and fostering development: the dilemmas of humanitarian aid Third world planning review. – Liverpool University Press. – 0142-7849   Vol. 22(1), 2000, p. 111-112 6 International Human Crisis: two decades before and two decades beyond. Randolf C Kent.International Affairs Volume 80, issie 5, 2004 pp 851-870 7International Human Crisis: two decades before and two decades beyond. Randolf C Kent. International Affairs Volume 80, issie 5, 2004 851-870 8 Reshaping humanitarian assistance in the twenty first century. Tim O’Dempsey and Barry Munslow. Pro gress in Development Studies 2009 9:1 pp 1-2 9 Randolf C Kent. Pp 851-870 10 Aaltola, M. – Responding to emergencies and fostering development: the dilemmas of humanitarian aid Third world planning review. – Liverpool University Press. – 0142-7849   Vol. 22(1), 2000, p. 111-112 11. G.M Guess. The Politics of United States Foreign Aid, London: Croom Helm, 1987, p3 12 Lischer, Sarah Kenyon. Dangerous Sanctuaries:  Refugee Camps, Civil War, And the Dilemmas of Humanitarian Aid. Cornwell University Press. 2006. Pp 3-9 13 Emergency Food Aid as a Means of Political Persuasion in the North Korean Famine Mika Aaltola Third World Quarterly  , Vol. 20, No. 2 (Apr. , 1999), p 374 14 Emergency Food Aid as a Means of Political Persuasion in the North Korean Famine Mika Aaltola Third World Quarterly  , Vol. 20, No. 2 (Apr. , 1999), pp 372- 386 15 Korean Herald, 13 May, 1997