Skip to main content

The evolution of humanitarianism and its modern challenges

The dilemmas of humanitarian action were discussed at a debate co-organised by Birkbeck.

The growth of humanitarian agencies and the dilemmas they face today were discussed at the first in a series of Bloomsbury debates about emergency relief.

Academics and practitioners described how the expansion of humanitarianism has fundamentally changed its character when they spoke at the meeting co-organised by Birkbeck, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and Médecins Sans Frontières. Humanitarianism, it was said, also raises ethical questions because of the difficulties of providing impartial assistance during conflict.

The illusion of humanitarian space

Dr Stephen Hopgood, of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), began by charting the origins of humanitarianism, and how more and more people “notionally” came to be protected from the late 19th century onwards by the idea of human rights. However, he explained that “there is nothing inevitable” about humanitarian space during the event at the Weiner Library in Russell Square on 15 November. Humanitarians have always faced danger, and continue to do so today.

The humanitarian industry

Hopgood also spoke about the transformation of humanitarianism, from small and amateur organisations based on solidarity in the 1960s and 1970s to today’s global $16 billion a year industry. He described how the rise of branding and management have combined to re-shape humanitarian agencies.

Hopgood said: “Something fundamental has changed about what humanitarianism is and we have to get to grips with that.” He also explained the strength of large religious-based humanitarian agencies as they draw on motivational logic and market logic, both why people should intervene, and how such aid should be delivered.

Sarah Collinson, of the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), echoed many of Hopgood’s concerns. She spoke of the “marketised” and “fragmented” approach of humanitarian agencies, and how decisions about where they work are increasingly dependent upon political and economic patronage. The reality, she explained, is that charities often sub-contract work to private providers, they are increasingly reliant on private security, and often staff in charge of projects are far away from the humanitarian intervention.

Collinson said: “The aid industry has been very opportunistic and adaptive. Institutional interests have often started to eclipse what humanitarian space should be.”

Assistance on the battlefield

The difficulties of working in Sri Lanka at the end of the civil war were shared by Fabrice Weissman, of MSF. He described how MSF worked within the detention camps created by the Sri Lankan government. Fabrice Weissman, of MSF, said: “There is an inherent tension between assistance and protection. To be able to access the battle zone you have to refrain from public comments. The reality of humanitarian space is defined by the very difficult dynamics of a real conflict. It raises ethical questions.”

Predicting the future

Weissman added that there will always be humanitarian needs and humanitarian actors, but it was clear from the debate that the humanitarian landscape is likely to continue to change in future. Hopgood predicted that the humanitarian landscape will become fragmented as other providers and Gulf funding challenge the current dominance of Western-based agencies.

Collinson concluded with a plea to address the “distorted and detached dominant narrative” surrounding humanitarian action. She added: “My critique is of the lack of open discussion.”

The debate was chaired by Dr Alex Colas, Senior Lecturer in International Relations at Birkbeck's Department of Politics.

More news about: