HUMANITARIANISM
AT CROSSROADS
“Alone we can do so little, together we can do so much” – Helen
Keller
On August 19, the World Humanitarian
Day will be observed under the
auspicious of the United Nations. Since 2009, the world body has dedicated this
day to recognize humanitarian personnel and those who
have lost their lives working for humanitarian causes, such as in the bombing
of the UN Headquarters in Baghdad on August 19, 2003. It aims to increase
public awareness about humanitarian assistance activities worldwide and the
importance of international cooperation. The observance of 2015 is aimed at
profiling Humanitarian Heroes –
people from all walks of life, who are committed to making a difference.
Humanitarianism
has witnessed remarkable growth from its humble origins in the early nineteenth
century to its current prominence in global life. The word “humanitarianism”
connotes philanthropy and benevolence, a charitable impulse towards the
unfortunate from those capable of alleviating poverty, disaster or war. It
suggests a benign doctrine, even a profession of faith.
“Humanitarian”,
originally a theological term, referred to one who affirmed the humanity of
Christ, while denying his divine existence. It came to mean the application of
purely human action – without religious sanction – to the resolution of social
problems. When it first appeared in the early nineteenth century, it carried
ironic overtones, suggesting an excess of zeal or sentimentality in those who
would change the world.
International
commitment to humanitarianism grew out of imperial missionary and charitable
activity. The abolition of slavery gave an impulse to a movement which did not
yet call itself humanitarian; even though the principle has existed, in one
form or another, in all human societies; and is, for example, according to
Qur’anic and prophetic texts, an essential and obligatory element of Muslim
religious practice.
For Christian
missionaries, medical advances in the nineteenth century made material healing
an important adjunct to the spiritual work of evangelists; no doubt, tangible
improvements in the material condition of the people also assisted the
spiritual “healing” required in the conversion of the heathen; and the
importance of the human often took precedence over a theoretical religious
“mission”.
A significant
moment in this secularization of humanitarian action came as a result of the
battle of Solferino in 1859, when Swiss businessman Henry Dunant was convinced of
the need of humanitarian gestures at the sight of dying soldiers while passing
through Castiglione. His proposal for trained medical personnel to be present
at such scenes of suffering led to the establishment of the International
Committee of the Red Cross in 1863. Despite the detachment of humanitarianism
from religion, the idea still retains something of its otherworldly roots,
since it is seen as a work of rescue, even of salvation, and produces a sense
of reverential piety.
In modern times,
claims to humanitarianism are always heard most loudly after some spectacular
act of inhumanity. The end of the World War II provided a particularly
compelling example. After Europe had been laid waste by the ideology of Nazism,
redemptive action was vital. Not only did “the economy” – the site of the
breakdown – become the object of rapid rehabilitation, but “development
assistance” to former imperial territories began; most of these had defected to
“socialism”, and the west offered “development” as the alternative. In an age
of globalization, development has been superseded by a fitting successor –
humanitarian intervention.
Humanitarianism
is what the west uniquely practices, bringing its kindness and goodwill to dark
places of the world, where savagery and barbarism still rule (or have
reappeared) at the heart of “primitive” or regressive cultures.
It is significant
that we hear much about “our values” when it comes to humanitarian help in
places ravaged by war, particularly when the west has been instrumental in, or
indifferent towards, the creation of strife, to which we must bring the urgent
capacity for relief of a concerned “international community”.
Humanitarian aid
is supposed to transcend all ideologies, cultures and beliefs. It is the
essence of human fellow-feeling, not to be contested or questioned. In other
words, it is an ideal vehicle for the monopoly of compassion often implied by
its western promoters.
Humanitarianism,
therefore, justifies all over again what “we” give to “them”. Its supreme
appeal is that it trumps all other systems and faiths, since it brings succor
to those persecuted in the name of all ideologies, religious and secular. It is
elevated over all other forms of giving. Dissent falls silent in the presence
of such magnanimity, and we drop our coins into the great collecting box of
conscience, satisfied we have done our duty.
In this way, even
our “humanitarianism” is an old story, but with a contemporary inflection. It
implies that love of humanity and compassion are defective in places that cry
out for “our” intercession. Not only is it at the core of “liberal
interventionism”, which topples dictators and dismantles dictatorships, but it
is also called into being to support campaigns of violence as a lesser evil;
notably in the arbitrarily established entities of the former Ottoman empire,
created at the end of the first world war by powers who had not yet discovered
their own humanitarian potential.
In such a
context, it should not astonish us if humanitarian assistance is sometimes
invoked even in the form of bombs, dropped to prevent greater wrongs – to
protect innocent civilians or to halt the “cancer” of extremism.
Perhaps the most
extraordinary example of humanitarianism in action may be seen in the recent
appeal to help the afflicted, the mutilated and bereaved of Gaza. When the
buildings have been razed, the bodies counted, the rubble turned over,
sorrowing peoples are invited to offer assistance to those whose lives have
been ruined or abridged; but no one – including those who were in a position to
do so – invoked humanitarianism to prevent the carnage from happening in the
first place. It is as if the humanitarianism of our age demands – in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Gaza, Libya – flattened cities, heaps of corpses, strife and
bloodshed in order to find its fullest expression.
Humanitarianism
after the event savors of hypocrisy as much as of philanthropy. Should it
surprise us if the imperialists of compassion themselves sometimes contribute
to the supply of scenes of misery, which then call forth their exhibitions of
altruism before a wondering world?
Whenever any
belief or doctrine becomes an “-ism” we should be on our guard, for that is the
sign that it is in the process of hardening into ideology. We know all too well
that enforcement of any ideology is likely to cause division due to the dogma
of its practitioners.
There is an
ever-growing demand in the world for humanitarian action in response to the
suffering caused by complex emergencies and natural disasters. Part of the
power and appeal of humanitarianism is its universality, that is, the idea that
humanitarianism is premised on cross-cultural moral truths and principles and a
concern for the alleviation of suffering of humankind, regardless of
differences. This idea of universality, however, is being called into question
as expressions of humanitarianism and humanitarian actors become increasingly
diverse.
What are the
implications of this emerging diversity in humanitarianism? There is a concern
among some traditional donors and agencies that the “new” humanitarian actors
have failed to internalize existing principles of the international
humanitarian order (IHO) and are poorly integrated into its institutions and
structures. Non-Western actors, for their part, argue that the existing IHO is
not “truly universal,” but is actually part of a Western hegemonic discourse.
Fragmentation could undermine the most fundamental objective of
humanitarianism: providing assistance to those in need in the most effective
ways possible.
On this World
Humanitarian Day, it is important for the world body to attempt for a better
understanding of diverse cultural interpretations of humanitarianism. Such an
effort would lead to a platform for critical dialogue among philosophers,
practitioners, and beneficiaries. This, in turn, can facilitate the development
of a more inclusive conceptualization of the IHO, and provide a mechanism for
identifying synergies and variations across different cultures.
The diversity of
humanitarian actions reflects the multitude needs of a diverse human population.
SUBHODEV DAS
0 Comments
