Humanitarian intervention is an essential safety net for the most vulnerable.
Whether is is provided by international agencies, governments, civil society organizations, or communities themselves, it needs to be nurtured and protected. However, politics and power always define the context in which humanitarian action takes place.
Research on the fraught humanitarian-political relationship has been a core activity at the Center since its inception. Through case studies in Sri Lanka, Nepal, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, we are analyzing the relevance of the humanitarian principles on neutrality, impartiality, and independence in a more complex, globalized but also potentially more polarized world.
Building on earlier work in Afghanistan and our briefing note on “Humanitarianism Unraveled?” published in mid- 2010, we have issued similar briefing notes on the relationship between humanitarian action and politics in Sri Lanka, Darfur, Pakistan, and Somalia. What will be the impact of sovereignty/nationalism-based critiques on the future of humanitarian action and in particular on the humanitarian system’s ability to reach the most vulnerable? What is the future of the time-tested universalist principles around which humanitarian action is organized (neutrality, impartiality, independence) in a more complex, globalized but also potentially more polarized world? How does the work of aid agencies during and after conflict affect people’s perceptions of change? What can we learn from recent experience? Our work in Nepal has uncovered a number of interesting issues around the humanitarian-development relationship and the challenges of social transformation in a (hopefully) post-conflict environment that we feel are important to research both because they are largely unexplored and because of their potential policy implications. The Center is conducting comparative field research in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Horn of Africa to examine the effectiveness of development assistance in promoting stabilization objectives. The belief that aid “wins hearts and minds” and is an effective “weapons system” in counterinsurgency operations is having a major impact on aid policies and counterinsurgency strategies.
Active Research
Previous Research
Recent Publications This paper by Paul Fishstein and Andrew Wilder presents findings from research conducted by FIC in five provinces of Afghanistan between July 2008 and January 2010 on the relationship between aid projects and security. This third Afghanistan provincial case study examines the use of aid, including “Quick Impact Projects” (QIPS), from 2006-08 to attempt to produce stability in an area of Afghanistan which has been among the most insecure and which has been a major focus of financial and human resources. This second provincial case study, authored by Geert Gompelman, examines the drivers of insecurity, characteristics of aid projects and aid implementers, and effects of aid projects on the popularity of aid actors and on security in an area of Afghanistan which has been among the most peaceful, but which has significant pockets of insecurity. Faryab differs from the other provinces in that the Norwegian-led Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) does not have a civil-military coordination function and does not directly implement development projects, instead channeling its aid through the central government, multi-lateral institutions, and non-governmental organizations. Over the past five years, Pakistan has witnessed three major crises affecting up to 18 million people. This new case study by Paul Fishstein examines the drivers of insecurity, characteristics of aid projects and aid implementers, and effects of aid projects on the popularity of aid actors and on security in an area of Afghanistan which has been among the most peaceful, but which over the last year has seen increasing insecurity. The research confirmed the widespread expressed dissatisfaction with post-2001 development activities, sometimes in contradiction of on-the-ground realities.