Threats to humanitarianism today : analysing the response of humanitarian advocates

(1)

THREATS TO HUMANITARIANISM

TODAY: ANALYSING THE RESPONSE

OF HUMANITARIAN ADVOCATES

Laurent Mottier

Student number: 11581607

Master Thesis Political Science

Specialisation: Public Policy and Governance

Supervisor: dr. Conny Roggeband

Second reader: dr. Polly Pallister-Wilkins

Research Project: Transnational Advocacy and Global

Policy Making

(2)

(3)

the Response of Humanitarian Advocates

1 Introduction

Former United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon invoked, on the 23rd_{and 24}th

of May 2016, the first ever World Humanitarian Summit. In Istanbul, the event brought together around nine thousand participants, including political and business leaders, humanitarian organisations, and civil society groups (Agenda for Humanity n.d.). The goal was to engage with the recent surge of humanitarian crisis, and to generate commitments to reduce suffering and to deliver better aid for people caught in crisis (Agenda for Humanity n.d.). Whilst this looked like a great opportunity to voice opinions about the field of humanitarianism, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), one of the most renowned non-governmental humanitarian organisation, decided to withdraw from the World Humanitarian Summit, a few weeks before its occurrence. Having worked on the Summit for a year and a half before retreating from it, this decision might have been seen by some as a surprise (MSF 2016). Nevertheless, MSF stated that the summit was “a fig-leaf of good intentions” for political powers, which would not result in addressing the threats that surround the field of humanitarianism (Jones 2016). In a reflection published shortly before the summit, MSF voiced their concerns about the way that conflicts around the world were being executed with complete disregard for International Humanitarian Law. They also pointed out that providing aid was becoming increasingly difficult—a concern the summit was not addressing (MSF 2016a). Moreover, MSF was extremely critical towards the United Nations, as they believed that a move away from “responding to emergencies” towards “ending needs” was endangering the already serious shortcomings of the humanitarian system in responding to crisis (MSF 2016a, p. 2). Indeed, humanitarian organisations are now being asked to become part of a broader agenda that includes peace building, development, and resilience (Agenda for Humanity 2016). This ends up seriously questioning the notions that humanitarianism should remain neutral and apolitical in their doings, by being coupled up with agendas that are undeniably not. This sparked a controversy in the field of humanitarianism, as many scholars had also voiced their concern on the dangers that the field of humanitarianism is facing (Agier 2013; Gordon & Donini 2015; Kofi Abiew 2012).

Therefore, my research question is the following: “how do humanitarian advocates respond to the current threats that surround their field of action, and their

(6)

principles?” This question allows me to examine the way that humanitarian advocates frame their work, and how they define their practice moving forward. I go beyond theoretical insights about the field of humanitarianism, by studying recent events that have not yet been discussed in academic literature. The objective of this research is to make sense of humanitarianism today, in regards to the recent debates the field is facing about its principles, its norms, and its values. As many scholars rather focus on humanitarians working on the field, the originality of my thesis relies on analysing discourses of those concerned with the advocacy of humanitarian organisations. Various academics already voiced their opinions on the threats to humanitarianism; however, I believe it is both original and crucial to get the point of view from advocates of humanitarian organisations themselves. The aim is to investigate how they view their practices and the institutions they represent, in order to make sense of the challenges facing 21st_{-century humanitarian action. A considerable part of my}

research will also be based on existing literature, as there exists a body of critical literature on the threats to humanitarianism, which I will describe in the next part.

2 Theoretical framework

In this theoretical part of my thesis, I map out recent debates around the field of humanitarianism. Firstly, I examine what is humanitarianism and what characterises this field though the classical humanitarian principles. Then, I analyse how the field changed in the last two to three decades and the reasons behind this shift to a form of “New Humanitarianism”. Next, I analyse the consequences of this shift for the field of humanitarianism, highlighting the threats the field of humanitarianism is facing; the threats of losing independence, being instrumentalised, and being endangered. Finally, I view how scholars define possible responses to these recent developments.

2.1 Definition of the concepts

First of all, it is important to define the concepts that are central to my thesis. The term “humanitarianism” is widely contested, and there exist numerous definitions. However, I decided to discuss two of them in this theoretical framework, with a particular focus on Antonio Donini’s definition. I have selected this quote because it

(7)

highlights essential elements, while providing a comprehensive view of what characterises humanitarianism. Donini (2010, p. 2) argues that:

“The concept of humanitarianism is fraught with ambiguities. It connotes three separate but overlapping realities: an ideology, a movement and a profession. Together, they form a political economy in which actors compete for influence, space and market share. What unites the various facets of humanitarianism is a broad commitment to alleviating the suffering and protecting the lives of civilians caught up in conflict or crisis.”

There, we can already perceive the complexity of the term, but also the element that humanitarianism performs in a contested space, where different actors interact and strive for influence. The idea that humanitarianism is characterised by three different overlapping realities—that of being an ideology, a movement, and a profession—will be significant in this framework. Moreover, I have selected Hazel Healy’s (2018) definition of humanitarianism, as it points to a recent shift. In an article published last year, she explains what humanitarianism is:

“In its simplest form this refers to any action to improve human welfare. Founded on the view that all human beings deserve respect and dignity, it has come to be associated closely with emergency responses to manmade or natural disasters. Traditionally, humanitarian action focused on offering life-saving support to those in immediate danger and protection of their rights. In recent years the term has been used to refer to everything from famine relief to state-building in Afghanistan.”

This definition is interesting because it pictures humanitarianism as a field that dramatically changed in recent years; moving from a fairly specific and constrained definition, to a broader and more encompassing one. This dimension of change will be central to my thesis.

2.2 Classical humanitarian principles

Indeed, to understand this dimension of change means that I must go back to the beginnings of humanitarianism, to understand what the main principles and ideals of the field are. In this part of my theoretical framework, I look at how humanitarian

(8)

conceived. I rely on literature that is mainly interested in the core principles of humanitarianism, and this can be generally found in works that examine the history of the humanitarian ideology and its developments. Michael Barnett (2011) wrote a book entitled Empire of Humanity, A History of Humanitarianism. This text traces back the history of humanitarianism over the last two centuries, and investigates the ideas, practices, problems, and institutions that marked humanitarianism. Michael Barnett believes that it is context and the global environment that shapes what humanitarianism is (Barnett 2011, p. 9). He states: “humanitarianism is a creature of the very world it aspires to civilize” (Barnett 2011, p. 221). The author distinguishes three humanitarian “ages”, three stages influenced by the global context: the imperial age (1800-1945), the neo-humanitarian age (1945-89), and the liberal age (1989-present). Imperial Humanitarianism is influenced by the age of colonialism, commerce, and civilizing missions. Neo-Humanitarianism is characterised by the international history of the Cold War and nationalism, as well as development and sovereignty. And for Liberal Humanitarianism, it is movements of liberal peace, globalization, and human rights that influence it (Barnett 2011, p. 9).

It is interesting to, first of all, comprehend how the myth of humanitarianism was conceived, in its classical form. In the late 1860s, humanitarianism focusing on “emergency” quickly became the face of international humanitarianism (Barnett 2011, p. 76). The beginning of the history of humanitarianism is often conceived with the story of the businessman Henry Dunant. The legend says that Dunant, a noble Swiss native, left Geneva to get a letter of support from Napoleon for his business pursuits in French Algeria, in 1859 (Barnett 2011, p. 77). At the end of his business trip, Dunant happened upon a battle between the French and the Austro-Hungarian, in the Italian village of Solferino. Feeling stunned by what he was seeing, Dunant felt obliged to intervene, and to help the soldiers suffering of injuries from the battle. Henry Dunant, once he got back to Geneva, wrote an account of this experience in a memoir entitled A Memory of Solferino. This book quickly became a sensation, and represented one of the first ever accounts of war as it is, stripped of all heroism, by presenting a brutal and austere version of war (Barnett 2011, p. 77). However, most importantly, the book pictures the principle of humanity, which became essential for humanitarian organisations. Dunant wrote:

(9)

“The moral sense of the importance of human life, the human desire to lighten a little the torments of these poor wretches, or restore their shattered courage; the furious and relentless activity which a man summons up at such moments: all these combine to create a kind of energy which gives on a positive craving to relieve as many as one can.” (Barnett 2011, p. 77)

Dunant wrote about the women of the village of Solferino, who helped relief the suffering of those wounded:

“Seeing that I made no distinction between nationalities, following my example, showing the same kindness to all these men whose origins were so different, and all of whom were foreigners to them. ‘Tutti fratelli’ (all are brothers), they repeated feelingly. All honor to these compassionate women, to these girls of Castiglione! Imperturbable, unwearying, unfaltering, their quiet self-sacrifice made little of fatigue and horrors, and of their own devotion.” (Barnett 2011, p. 77)

This idea of helping those who are foreign, regardless of their origins, became essential to represent the field of humanitarianism. It depicts the principle of humanity, which is central to humanitarianism. Dunant grabbed the attention of the Genevan Society of Public Utility, in February 1963, as the latter created an exploratory subcommittee of five Christian citizens from Geneva, including Dunant; this is the birth of the organisation commonly known today as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (Barnett 2011, p. 78). The myth of humanitarianism is often based on this narrative, as this story represent a form of ethical pinnacle by promoting the principle of humanity. The latter is one of the most important principles of the field, but other principles are likewise essential.

Indeed, regardless of all the developments the field of humanitarianism went through in history, Michael Barnett distinguishes three basic principles for providing life-saving relief; impartiality, neutrality, and independence (Barnett 2011, p. 2). He defines impartiality as the principle to give aid based on need, and not on who is being helped or where they live. Neutrality is the principle that aid must not, in any way, favour one side or the other in a conflict. Independence is the notion that aid must be delivered with no connection to any party with a stake in a conflict. Barnett argues that these principles were actually not a part of humanitarianism’s original

(10)

ideals, but they rather became important over decades of action and debate that lead to their authority in the 1960s, when they became part of the ICRC’s code of conduct (Barnett 2011, p. 5). Kofi Abiew (2012, p. 205) also believes that it is not after the end of the Second World War that humanitarian principles were consolidated, when an international consensus was decided that there should be clear limits on the means and the methods of warfare. Likewise, the author argues that it is the ICRC that epitomizes humanitarian universal values the most: as humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and universality represent the underlying principle of humanitarian action (Kofi Abiew 2012, p. 205). To describe these four principles, Francis Kofi Abiew explains:

“The chief of these (humanity) is the principle of assisting the wounded and suffering without discrimination, by virtue of their membership in humanity. The principle of impartiality directs that assistance be provided based solely on need, without discrimination among recipients. The principle of neutrality stipulates that humanitarian organizations should refrain from taking sides in conflict or engaging in political or social controversies. Last, the principle of universality is necessary to ensure that humanitarian action only serves the interests of war victims no matter where they live, and not political, religious or other interests.” (Kofi Abiew 2012, p. 205)

Kofi Abiew argues that these four principles are indispensable to ensure that the field of humanitarianism is separated from the field of politics, as the avoidance of politics is fundamental for defining humanitarianism (Kofi Abiew 2012, p. 205). Michael Barnett (2005, p. 724) also argues that these four principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence serve to depoliticise humanitarian action, as they thus enable humanitarian organisations to create a “humanitarian space” insulated from politics.

Another important scholar to rely on in my thesis is the French intellectual Didier Fassin, a central figure in the field of humanitarianism. As a doctor, anthropologist, and sociologist, Fassin (2012) wrote seminal work on the theme of humanitarianism, and most recently a book entitled Humanitarian Reason, A Moral History of the

Present. Fassin believes that humanitarian reason is a response, from our society, to

what is intolerable about the state of the contemporary world: violence, disasters, epidemics, but also poverty, insecurity, and misfortune (Fassin 2012, p. 252). He

(11)

argues that humanitarian reason is the thinking that allows us to believe that we are all equals as human beings, and that we belong to one moral community, even though there are evidence to believe that we are, in truth, unequal in the face of suffering. Didier Fassin (2007) also wrote an article entitled ‘Humanitarianism as a Politics of Life’, in which he studies the position of MSF regarding the war in Iraq. He calls “politics of life” the “politics that give special value and meaning to human life” (Fassin 2007, p. 500). Humanitarianism is thus characterised by the principle of taking the side of the victims, those who are being left out by the politics of war instigated by states. The advocacy of humanitarian organisation thus relies on saving lives, but also bearing witness to the suffering and the cause of the victims (Fassin 2007, p. 517). Craig Calhoun (2010), an American sociologist, wrote an interesting book chapter on the ideas behind humanitarianism. He distinguishes two essential terms of references for humanitarianism, which are “neutrality” and “emergency”. Neutrality refers to the action of non-taking any sides, while emergency refers to assistance that is immediate and urgent in its response—and thus free from politics such as development assistance (Calhoun 2010). These principles allow humanitarianism to be apolitical, although Calhoun believes that these are seriously questioned nowadays.

2.3 New Humanitarianism

In fact, we are now witnessing a shift in the field of humanitarianism. This part of my thesis relies on literature that focuses on the current and recent changes that the field of humanitarianism is facing, and the dangers that humanitarian principles face from these transformations. There exist a small body of critical literature for me to build my research on, to showcase how humanitarian principles are currently under threat. Firstly, I analyse how this shift occurred, and the geopolitical reason that brought this shift (2.3.1). Secondly, I explain the consequences this shift has on the field of humanitarianism, and the threats it brings. This second part is separated into three sub-parts, focusing on the consequences of the new humanitarianism; how humanitarianism is losing its independence (2.3.2), how humanitarianism is being used instrumentally (2.3.3), and how humanitarianism is in danger, a threat perceived by humanitarian organisations (2.3.4). This self-made classification,

(12)

resulting from my analysis of literature, helps me make sense of the consequences brought by this recent shift in the field of humanitarianism.

2.3.1 A shift in the field of humanitarianism

Firstly, I analyse what characterises this shift in the field of humanitarianism towards “New Humanitarianism”, and the causes of it. Michel Agier (2013), a French anthropologist and ex-MSF advocate, believes that humanitarianism in the last three to four decades can be separated between three different ages. The first one is the age of the “French Doctors”, in the 1970s, when humanitarianism was heavily influenced by the postmodernist turn, and a discourse aligning against colonialism. This context saw the creation of humanitarian organisations such as, for instance, MSF. The second age refers to the end of the 1980s—beginning of the 1990s, with the end of the Cold War and the reorganisation of world politics. It is a globalist movement, which saw the emergence and proliferation of international non-governmental organisations. It is bound to this context that a shift happened for the field, which scholars label as the “New Humanitarianism”. During this period post-cold war, the humanitarian field became bigger, and more institutionalised. Humanitarian interventions also became increasingly mediatised, which was an important factor of growth for the field (Agier 2013, p. 117). Humanitarian organisations grew and gained more influence than ever before; they acquired more means, and more technical savoir-faire as the field became increasingly professionalized (Brauman 2008, p. 22). Nevertheless, what characterise perhaps at best “New Humanitarianism” are two transformations that Michael Barnett (2005) classifies; firstly, humanitarian organisations began to move away from focusing on aid only, and, secondly, humanitarian organisations became more and more willing to work alongside states. It is thus two transformations of the field of humanitarianism towards politicisation and institutionalisation, which characterises this “New Humanitarianism” (Barnett 2005, p. 726). In the 1990s, States became increasingly willing to act in the name of humanitarianism, to fund humanitarian organisations, and to use their power to support humanitarian causes (Kofi Abiew 2012, p. 207). Certain humanitarian organisations embraced politics, and moved away from the classical principles that used to characterize them.

(13)

Michael Barnett (2005) wrote an article entitled ‘humanitarianism transformed’, in which he looks at this shift of the humanitarian field, and aims at understanding the reasons behind it. He believes that environmental forces played a central role in transforming humanitarianism in the 1990s, and there are several reasons to explain this change (Barnett 2005, p. 726). Firstly, the end of the cold war increased the demand of humanitarian assistance, as emergencies started to appear more and more on the international agenda. Whether there were more crisis than before remains to be proven, however states started to recognize more and more that there were populations at risk from crisis; whether that happened from their doings or not. States began to support humanitarian actions with more means, and a big factor of the shift was the political economy of funding (Barnett 2005, p. 727). Official assistance from states reached record level, which increased the power of humanitarian organisations, but also increased some form of accountability and expectations that states had towards humanitarian organisations (Barnett 2005, p. 727). Official assistance for humanitarian organisations tripled up in the 1990s: from two billion dollars in 1990, to six billion dollars in 2000 (Barnett 2011, p. 3). The field of humanitarianism also became increasingly entangled with politics due to the emergence of “complex humanitarian emergencies” which are defined as a “conflict related humanitarian disaster involving a high degree of breakdown and social dislocation and, reflecting this condition, requiring a system-wide aid response from the international community” (Barnett 2005, p. 726). These new types of emergencies increasingly developed at the end of the cold war, and involved many issues such as state failures, civil wars, and refugees displacements. They required forms of intervention that went beyond the sole expertise of humanitarian organisations, as conflict management tools were required for example. These complex humanitarian emergencies invited a broad range of NGOs to intervene, such as human rights organisations, development agencies, or even military forces. NGOs had to interact with each other, and some boundaries that humanitarian organisations previously set became blurred. The term “humanitarian” became increasingly used to include many more practices and goals according to Barnett (Barnett 2005, p. 727). Gordon and Donini (2015, p. 84) believe that this concept of complex emergency “transformed the short term, sudden “innocence” of a “natural” disaster into a major complex political emergency, multi-causal in nature and demanding of a protracted and system-wide response”. They argue that it makes

(14)

sense, when using the term “complex humanitarian emergencies”, to conceive that the traditional emergency relief approach was not sufficient, and that it attracted an emphasis on development aid and human rights activism to respond to this type of complex issues (Gordon & Donini, 2015, pp. 87-88). These are all factors that participated in moving the field towards the ”New Humanitarianism”, more institutionalised and more politicised, in the last two to three decades. In the next parts, I analyse more in-depth how these two logics of institutionalisation and politicisation occur, and the consequences they have on the field of humanitarianism.

2.3.2 Humanitarianism losing its independence

As described previously, humanitarian organisations on the field see their agendas being brought closer to other forms of intervention, and this trend can be further observed in the 2000s. This broadening of the agenda of humanitarian organisations sparked a controversy recently. The fourth Core Responsibility expressed in the commitments agreed at the World Humanitarian Summit, in 2016, is about a change “from delivering aid to ending need” (Agenda for Humanity 2016, p. 21). Indeed, the humanitarian system is being asked to become a part of the agenda of the UN of “ending need”, which propose to incorporate humanitarian aid into a much broader agenda of peace-building, development, and resilience (Agenda for Humanity 2016). MSF has been particularly critical towards this desire to incorporate humanitarianism with other agendas, as “focusing on the longer-term development challenges will inevitably come at the expense of those people caught up in the most urgent crises” (MSF 2016, p. 2). Furthermore, MSF claimed that this push for encompassing different actions will eventually obscure the distinctions between humanitarian assistance and development aid, as both have radically different objectives and functions (MSF 2016, p. 3). This undoubtedly challenges the humanitarian principle that humanitarianism should remain independent. Rony Brauman (2008) would argue that this represents a debate between the “needs-based approach” and the “rights-based approach”. The needs-based approach is the one being defended by MSF, which focuses on responding to people being in urgent need, while the rights-based approach is an extensive approach aiming at protecting the rights of everyone. Brauman (2008, p. 22) hopes that the “needs-based approach” will persist, as it reinforces and legitimises the field of action of humanitarianism.

(15)

MSF argued that humanitarian action will always remain “needs-based” as they adapt to any situation, and don’t aim at targeting root causes of suffering (MSF 2016, p. 2). The organisation states “humanitarian and development approaches are two tracks which may be complementary to one another but do not have the same goals, priorities, methods or targets. In conflict situations, above all, a humanitarian approach must distance itself from development programmes, which are linked to longer-term inherently political processes” (MSF 2016, p. 2). Also arguing against this broadening of the humanitarian agenda, Kofi Abiew (2012) wrote some significant work on the topic of “New Humanitarianism”. He believes that the “New Humanitarianism” represent a shift in the field, as humanitarianism is no longer at the margins of the international policy agenda, but is being redefined to take a central place in the international political system (Kofi Abiew 2012, p. 204). This redefines the policy of humanitarianism to be integrated with the agenda of human rights, reconstruction, and peace building (Kofi Abiew 2012, p. 204). He also argued that “New Humanitarianism” is a deeply political form, and that its integrated approach challenges the principles of humanitarians being neutral and impartial. Antonio Donini (2010, p. 6) likewise claimed that “the more the humanitarian agenda will expand into non-humanitarian territory—development, justice, human rights— the more it risks being sucked into power and politics and perceived as taking sides”. This would ultimately come at the expense of the classical humanitarian principles. Humanitarian organisations cannot afford to be seen as taking a political side, and I will analyse these consequences in the next two parts.

2.3.3 Humanitarianism used instrumentally

I shall come back to Michel Agier’s (2013) classification of three different humanitarian ages that occurred in the last three to four decades. I described that the second age was relating to the end of the cold war and the reorganisation of world politics, which was marked by an expansion of the field of humanitarianism, becoming increasingly institutionalised and politicised. However, Agier believes that there exist a third age, which can be traced back to the “war on terror” post 9/11, that characterises the most the field of humanitarianism nowadays. Michel Agier believes that from then on, humanitarianism has been used instrumentally by imperial powers to instigate a military control over the world, and to manage the crisis caused

(16)

by wars (Agier 2013, p. 118). Michel Agier argues that the term “humanitarian war” has been used repeatedly in many conflicts; in Afghanistan, in 2001, in Iraq, in 2003, and in Lybia in 2011 (Agier 2013, p. 118). This particularly damaging trend occurred when states began to consider humanitarian assistance as a tool for their strategic and foreign policy goals (Barnett 2005, p. 726). A famous episode characterising this trend was a speech given by the US Former Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2001, as he stated: “just as surely as our diplomats and military, American NGOs are out there [in Afghanistan] serving and sacrificing on the front lines of freedom. NGOs are such a force multiplier for us, such an important part of our combat team” (Barnett 2005, p. 726). Mentioning combat team and NGOs in the same sentence was not the greatest idea, and scholars often mention this quote has a key event that hurt humanitarian principles badly (Barnett 2005; Schenkenberg van Mierop 2016). Antonio Donini (2010, p. 4) believes that using humanitarianism for instrumental end is nothing new; however, he argues that it is a recent and alarming trend to see humanitarianism being manipulated and connected as much with global political agendas. This author argues that the last two decades have witnessed the appearance of a new motivation behind humanitarianism, which is the motive of “containment”. He argues that this containment can take the form of governments taking deliberate decisions to incorporate humanitarian interventions in their security strategies, in order to contain certain crisis (Donini 2010, p. 4).

Moreover, military forces are deployed for humanitarian reasons and they become involved in humanitarian affairs, which undermines the independence of humanitarian organisations according to Schenkenberg van Mierop (2016, p. 316). The boundaries between humanitarian organisations and military forces are often questioned, when humanitarian organisations become willing to operate with the help of military forces in difficult contexts (Schenkenberg van Mierop 2016). It is tempting for humanitarian organisations to request help from military powers, as their technical and logistical means for support are incredibly high. For instance, humanitarian organisations might look at the capacity of military powers to airlift supplies to assist their aid operations (Schenkenberg van Mierop 2016, p. 317). Didier Fassin argues that in October 2001, the operation “enduring freedom” from the US in Afghanistan combined the bombing of strategic sites and airdrops of so-called humanitarian packages of assistance (Institute for Advanced Study 2012). NGOs

(17)

warned that seeing military powers deliver humanitarian assistance could create a confusion for non-state armed groups, and several killings and kidnapping of humanitarian workers in the months following the operation proved that Talibans did no longer make any distinction between humanitarian organisations and the US army (Institute for Advanced Study 2012). In this part of my thesis, I have argued that humanitarianism is being used by states to pursue political motives. The field of humanitarianism, according to these authors, became increasingly vulnerable to external control of military powers in the last two decades. In the next part, I discuss how humanitarian organisations, being seen as taking side, can be fatal for their operations.

2.3.4 Humanitarianism in danger

In fact, the repercussions of these changes of the humanitarian agenda, and the politicisation of the field of humanitarianism, are deadly for humanitarian workers. Kofi Abiew (2012) believes that, in the context of war, belligerents do not view humanitarian NGOs as truly neutral—but instead as political agents of outside powers. He argues that: “warring parties – local warlords, bandits and thieves, religious fanatics, thugs and terrorists – are willing to kidnap, bomb and kill humanitarian aid workers, thereby escalating the dangers of relief work in the field” (Kofi Abiew 2012, p. 204). The author claims that the making of humanitarian NGOs as an extension of military and political agenda in the last two decades – what he defines as “the integrative approach” – is the main reason behind the surge of attacks against humanitarians since 2003 (Kofi Abiew 2012, p. 208). Not only are humanitarian workers killed on the field, but they are also witnessing their field of action being increasingly restricted because of their association with political actors. Donini (2010, p. 5) believes that humanitarian action is more and more denounced by government and non-state actors that see it as a form imperialism, meaning that humanitarians are confronted with issues of sovereignty and nationalism that will increase humanitarian aid being rejected in decades to come. This is part of a trend of “the vilification of humanitarianism” according to Donini (2010, p. 5). States see humanitarian aid as an imperial intervention, a cover for military coups, which results in states rejecting humanitarian aid. Therefore, not only is the field of humanitarianism in concrete danger from being targeted on the field, but also its own

(18)

field of action is being more and more limited. The field of humanitarianism is facing a serious crisis nowadays, and scholars perceive a growing threat against it.

Moreover, it is important to define what I mean by using the notion of “threat” against humanitarianism, which is central to my title and my research question. The aim of my research is not to concretely prove that there is a physical threat to humanitarian workers, but to show that humanitarian organisations, and scholars, have a much more enhanced perception of threats in recent times. Larissa Fast (2010) published an article in which she documents the literature that aims at testing whether attacks on humanitarian aid workers have increased in recent decades. Her findings are that it is extremely difficult to analyse empirical evidence that looks at the numbers and the different types of attacks against aid workers, as there exist no truly reliable data (Fast 2010, p. 368). She argues, nonetheless, that there is a pattern that converges in these studies, showing that the numbers of incidents are increasing, even if the rates of violence fluctuate over time (Fast 2010, p. 374). Nevertheless, Fast argues that whether one can prove that these attacks are happening at a higher rate is not as important as showing that there is growing evidence that actors, across different humanitarian organisations, have a greater perception of these threats (Fast 2010, p. 368). Indeed, this sense of growing threat has generated a way higher awareness of security concerns, as Fast argues that reports from the UN Safety and Security have indicated a change in perception from 2005 to 2010 (Fast 2010, p. 376). The author argues that the explosion of research and documentation over these issues of threats, tends to prove that violence against humanitarian workers is, indeed, increasing around the world, as well as truly perceived by humanitarian organisations (Fast 2010, p. 368). I would argue, additionally, that this growing perception of threat can be visibly noticed when one looks at the “Not a Target” 2016 joint-campaign by MSF and the ICRC (MSF 2016b; ICRC 2018). This campaign aims at raising awareness on the issue of attacks against healthcare workers, facilities, and patients, to request military powers to stop targeting their buildings (MSF 2016b). MSF states that, in 2016, 106 aerial bombings and shelling attacks hit 75 MSF or supported hospitals in Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Sudan (MSF 2016b). In May 2016, the United Nations Security Council met to address the ongoing security crisis of medical care in conflict zones, in which Joanne Liu, the President of the organization, strongly stated: “You are charged with protecting peace and

(19)

security. Yet, 4 of the 5 permanent members of this Council have, to varying degrees, been associated with coalitions responsible for attacks on health structures over the last year. Stop these attacks” (MSF 2016b). There, one can witness how humanitarian organisations feel directly targeted by military states, and the most powerful belligerents, as their perception of a threat is evident throughout their campaign. What I consider essential, in this paper, is this growing and heightened sense of threat that humanitarian organisations feel in recent times, and I will analyse how humanitarian organisations respond to it, through my empirical work.

To come back to the first definition of “humanitarianism” I discussed earlier, Antonio Donini (2010, p. 2) defines humanitarianism as “an ideology, a movement, and a profession”. From this part of my thesis, based on literature depicting “New Humanitarianism”, I can conclude with the postulation that the ideology of humanitarianism has been increasingly politicised in the last two to three decades, as the field expanded its agenda by cooperating with and embracing other agendas. The humanitarian movement is losing its independence, and its profession can be seen as under threat, as humanitarian workers have been targeted on the field.

2.4 Response to the threats according to scholars

For my research, I decided to focus on humanitarian advocates: people working for humanitarian organisations in advocacy departments. I will use an interpretive framework for my qualitative research, which is explorative in its essence. My interest is to understand the point of view of humanitarian advocates, and analyse the way they view the principles, the norms, and the values of humanitarianism moving forward. This leads me to formulate two sub-questions that guided me throughout my empirical work: “how are the threats affecting the practices and principles of humanitarian organisations? And how do they respond to it?” I am interested in making sense of the discourses of humanitarian advocates, to comprehend how they position themselves nowadays, in regards to the threats that the field is facing. Nonetheless, it is likewise important to look at the views of scholars on how humanitarian organisations respond to the shift to the field of humanitarianism and the threats that comes with it; this part of my research is dedicated to this.

(20)

As I have already defined humanitarian principles, it is important for me to explain what I intend with the term of “practice”. By using this term, I refer to two different meanings expressed in the Cambridge Dictionary. Firstly, practice is defined as “an action rather than thought or ideas” (Cambridge Dictionary 2019). This is interesting, since it goes further than focusing on “principles” only, by looking at concrete operations of humanitarian organisations nowadays. Secondly, the Cambridge Dictionary defines practice as “something that is usually or regularly done, often as a habit, tradition, or custom” (Cambridge Dictionary 2019). This meaning is significant, as it depicts the term of practice as something durable, which does not necessarily fluctuate over time since it is linked with customs and habits. As I am interested in changes, in regards to the threats to humanitarianism, it will be essential to view how traditional practices of humanitarian organisations are challenged, and how strategies that humanitarian organisations use fluctuate due to these changes.

Whilst the fourth part of my research will rely largely on empirical data, it is, however, useful to examine literature around the activities and the strategies of humanitarian NGOs in response to the threats to humanitarianism. First, I look at the classification made by scholars between “Dunantist” and “Wilsonian” humanitarian organisations. Then, I analyse literature that look at certain strategies used by humanitarian organisations, with a focus on MSF and the ICRC, the two organisations I selected for my empirical work.

2.4.1 “Wilsonian” vs. “Dunantist” organisations

In relation to the “New Humanitarianism”, several authors make a distinction between two different types of humanitarian organisations that respond differently to the changes that impact the field of humanitarianism (Barnett 2005; Donini 2010; Gordon & Donini 2015). They are classified as either “Dunantist” or “Wilsonian” organisations, depending on their responses to these transformations. The “Dunantist” organisations are named after Henry Dunant, the founder of the ICRC. “Dunantist” organisations aim at staying close to the classical humanitarian principles of independence, impartiality, and neutrality (Barnett 2005, p. 728). These humanitarian organisations believe that the classical principles are fundamental, and

(21)

they fear that relaxing them or expanding their agendas would have negative consequences, such as making them be seen as political actors or endangering their workers on the field (Barnett 2005, p. 728). They recognise themselves in the founding principles of the ICRC, and strongly advocated in the 1990s against this merging between humanitarianism and politics (Barnett 2005, p. 728). MSF and the ICRC are two examples of humanitarian organisations that wish to stick to these classical principles, and to advocate for it according to scholars (Barnett 2005; Donini 2010; Gordon & Donini 2015).

On the other hand, organisations that are “Wilsonian” embraced the changes that arrived at the end of the cold war, to extend their agendas. Named after US former President Woodrow Wilson, these organisations capitalised on the “New Humanitarianism” to pursue new objectives as they were no longer satisfied by the goal of relieving suffering; they wished to tackle the root causes of it. Donini (2010, p. 3) argues that “Wilsonian” organisations see their work as an extension of their country’s political position. The International Rescue Committee and Oxfam are two examples of “Wilsonian” organisations according to Barnett (Barnett 2005, p. 728). They lobbied for these transformations, and expanded their agendas into new territories such as development work. This position can also be illustrated by the UN’s agenda of “ending need” committed at the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit (Agenda for Humanity 2016, p. 21).

Donini argues that this distinction between “Dunantist” and “Wilsonian” organisations is not always clear, as many organisations have already multiple agendas that could be interpreted as taking either side (Donini 2010, p. 3). It will be interesting, in my empirical work, to analyse if this distinction exist in practice, and if MSF and ICRC advocates truly picture themselves using this dichotomy, and believe that the latter actually exists in practice. In the next part of this chapter on the response to the threats according to scholars, I analyse literature on strategies that MSF and the ICRC use in practice. Some of these strategies could be seen as a response to the “New Humanitarianism”.

(22)

2.4.2 Strategies in response to the threats

DeChaine (2002) engages with the discourses of MSF, to understand its role in contemporary global politics. The author distinguishes three methods that MSF uses to create a social imaginary, which aims at constructing a global community that unites individuals, governments, NGOs, and international institutions. First, he argues that MSF uses the term of “neutrality” to create its public image, which is essential for the organisation to argue for actions that are independent of politics (DeChaine 2002, p. 358). DeChaine believes that the term of “politics” is never really defined by MSF, other than by seeing politics as the direct opposite of the principle of neutrality (DeChaine 2002, p. 359). He believes that: “MSF members’ use of the term “politics” serves not so much as a symbolic bridge between governments and NGOs but rather as an ideological marker against which the constituents of true humanitarian action are to be measured. If humanitarianism is measured by its neutrality (read ideological and political purity), then politics for MSF is measured by its potential threat of corrupting that neutrality” (DeChaine 2002, p. 359). Therefore, MSF uses the term of neutrality to create an image and position themselves against the imagined tainted and corrupting political action of states. The second method used by MSF is that of témoignage, translated from French literally as testimony or witnessing, which is the practice of bearing witness and speaking out against the injustices that MSF workers meet on the field (DeChaine 2002, p. 358). Speaking out thus serves as a tool for the organisation “to stir up indignation and stimulate action” (MSF 2000, cited in DeChaine 2002, p. 358). The author believes that the mediated engagement of MSF produces a moral discourse that constructs the position of MSF as the good vs. the evil. Indeed, DeChaine states that: “MSF’s credibility as a humanitarian agency turns in part on its ability to establish a perception of its volunteers as courageous, ideologically pure, morally committed agents of change. They are saviors, champions of the voiceless, who knowingly and willfully face the morally unrighteous enemies of humanity” (DeChaine 2002, p. 362). The third and final method used by MSF, is that of constructing what DeChaine calls a “humanitarian space” (DeChaine 2002, p. 362). It is the imaginative construct of a space that challenges the traditional conceptions of sovereignty. This idea of sans

frontièrisme, translated from French as “without borderism”, is at the core of the

(23)

serves to shape a global community, which transcend differences, and gives the right and freedom to humanitarian intervention (DeChaine 2002, p. 363).

Undoubtedly, DeChaine was influenced by the work of François Debrix (1998) on the humanitarian space. In an influential article, Debrix (1998) examines the spatial strategies deployed by medical humanitarian organisations, and MSF in particular. The author believes that the core principle of MSF is its conceptualisation of the

espace humanitaire, translated from French as humanitarian space. This concept

aims at representing a space with universal humanity, to relief the suffering of those in need, and most importantly to operate independently from borders and states (Debrix 1998). Debrix believes that this concept of humanitarian space can be seen as a form of “deterritorialisation”, which would imply that space in international relations is changed and no longer what it used to be (Debrix 1998, p. 829). Therefore, through this process of deterritorialisation, MSF creates a new territorial structure, and thus participate in a reterritorialisation of the space (Debrix 1998, p. 834). This deterritorialisation and reterritorialisation of the space, creates, according to Debrix, a particular array of features and activities, which are specific to this new space. Therefore not only does MSF aim at transcending traditional boundaries of international politics, both physically and ideologically, but it also aims at establishing a form of “humanitarian sanctuary”, to create a space where the protection and the relief for populations in need become possible (Debrix 1998, p. 829). This, ultimately, enables to identify a new category of individuals within these humanitarian spaces: the victims, who are in need of saving by the humanitarian workers (Debrix 1998, p. 842). This construction of “victims”, and “the space of victimhood”, is essential for MSF, according to Debrix (Debrix 1998, p. 843). This imaginary of a humanitarian space is also inherently connected to the classical principles of humanitarian action; neutrality, impartiality, and humanity.

Gordon and Donini (2015) wrote an article recently on humanitarian principles, and analysed whether the humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, independence, and neutrality, still represent an authentic and stable consensus on the nature of humanitarianism. They view humanitarianism as “socially and dynamically constructed” (Gordon & Donini 2015, p. 82). Even if they state that “New Humanitarianism” has challenged and damaged the position of humanitarian

(24)

organisations, they believe that humanitarian principles are still useful for humanitarian organisations, especially when it comes to gaining access to the field (Gordon & Donini 2015, p. 107). An interesting example they provide is a strategy used by the ICRC, showcasing how the organisation managed to reinvent the concept of neutrality in the geopolitical context post-cold war. The authors argue that the ICRC has been affected by the rise of “complex humanitarian emergencies”, and that, as a way of responding to this context, embraced what the authors call a form of “politics of discretion” (Gordon & Donini 2015, p. 95). This politics of discretion and confidentiality is about refraining from being vocal about certain violations, in order to preserve the identity of being a neutral organisation. In this way, neutrality serves the ICRC to gain access to countries that others cannot enter, by remaining silent, and thus gaining access to fields of complex humanitarian emergencies. The ICRC can therefore discuss with belligerents and governments in a discrete fashion, and this as benefited the ICRC greatly according to Gordon and Donini. The authors argue that this politics of discretion has allowed the ICRC to further remove themselves away from political powers, to reinforce their position as a neutral organisation in practice (Gordon & Donini 2015, p. 99).

It will be essential to analyse, through my empirical work, if these strategies of neutrality from the ICRC, speaking out from MSF, and the construction of a humanitarian space, are still relevant nowadays in regards to the threats the field of humanitarianism is facing. It will be important to assess if the advocacy of classical humanitarian principles matters for humanitarian organisations, in today’s context. Moreover, Stroup and Wong (2016) published an article on the different scholarships around International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs). They argue that scholars and practitioners tend to separate the work of INGOs between two different strategies: advocacy and service delivery (Stroup & Wong 2016, p. 140). However, they argue that both of these strategies, with the purpose of advancing social change, are extremely blurred in practice, as INGOs have to change the balance of these activities over time (Stroup & Wong 2016, p. 140). I will assess how humanitarian organisations create distinctions between advocacy and practice, as I believe that the frontier between these two activities for humanitarian organisations is very thin. This distinction will be investigated in my empirical data.

(25)

3 Research design

My research is based on two grounds: academic literature on humanitarianism and a qualitative empirical research. The first part of my thesis relied principally on academic literature, for the purpose of mapping out the debates around humanitarian principles, and the threats that the field of humanitarianism is facing. It is important to get an understanding of what characterises humanitarianism, and how the field of humanitarianism has evolved in recent times. I thus conducted an in-depth desk research, by examining literature around the history of humanitarianism, and how new developments are generating threats to the field. I also analysed literature around the strategies used by humanitarian organisations, in response to these changes. Overall, this literature allowed me to map out the debates on the recent changes to the field, in order to create an interview outline for my empirical research. Secondly, I have conducted a qualitative empirical research. I conducted interviews, with humanitarian advocates, in order to analyse how the threats humanitarian organisations are facing affect their work. I also wished to understand what consist of their strategy to respond to these developments, and how their practices are challenged. I conducted semi-directive interviews, and I rely principally on the results of these interviews to build an interpretative analysis leading to answers for my research question in the next part of my thesis. One of the downsides of semi-directive interviews is that one cannot fully prepare all of the questions that are asked during the interview. To deal with this, I have created themes of questions linked to different areas of interest I had, which enabled my participants to describe their views in as much detail and freedom as they wish, while keeping the interview within the remit of my research themes. These interviews were mainly conducted via Skype and Face Time, but I also had the chance to visit MSF’s Operational Centre in Amsterdam. I have used the software Atlas.ti for transcribing and coding my interviews.

The results of my research are more descriptive rather than trying to prove a model. I do not intend to elaborate a concrete theory, as my wish is more to make sense of the challenges facing 21st-century humanitarianism, by looking at a field with an interpretive lens. This research falls within the post-positivist approach. I also hope

(26)

that this research can inspire scholars and students to go deeper into some of the issues I analyse in this thesis, as some of the events I am focusing on have not yet been analysed in academic literature.

In regards to my case selection, I decided to interview humanitarian advocates from two different organisations: Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), and the International Committee of The Red Cross (ICRC). I was especially interested in MSF, as the controversy of the World Humanitarian Summit directly concerns their organisation. However, I believed it would also be interesting to interview a second organisation, to get perhaps a different view on the issues I analyse. I chose these two organisations for the reasons that they are both influential and typical cases of international humanitarian organisations. When scholars discuss humanitarian principles, they often refer to these two organisations as extremely important actors for the field of humanitarianism. Michael Barnett (2011, p. 10), for instance, believes that the ICRC is “treated as the guardian of all things humanitarian”. The ICRC is also considered to be the first and oldest NGO; it also won the Nobel Prize for Peace several times, whilst MSF has also received the honour in 1999. These are many reasons that incited me to believe that these two organisations were both influential and typical cases of international humanitarian organisations, and thus great cases for my research. Within these two humanitarian organisations, I have interviewed humanitarian advocates from different national charters. I had discussions with advocates from MSF Amsterdam, Brussels, and other anonymous operational centres. I also had the chance to discuss with someone from the ICRC office in London. Each MSF’s operational centre focuses on different operations, and whilst they all respond to the international charter, they have different opinions on certain topics. Each charter has a different operational culture, which makes it extremely interesting to discuss with humanitarian advocates from different backgrounds and positions. This enriched my empirical research and the results gained from it.

An important matter I need to clarify is the anonymity of some of the humanitarian advocates I discussed with. All of the participants in my research have had the choice to remain anonymous or not. Whilst my interviewees have approved all of the quotes I am using in this thesis related to their names, certain humanitarian advocates I

(27)

discussed with decided to remain anonymous. Some of the topics I discussed with humanitarian advocates are quite sensitive. Only my supervisor and my second reader will receive the full transcripts of the interviews I conducted, in order to protect the identity of my participants. Therefore, the transcripts of my interviews won’t be published in the university’s database.

More importantly for ethical clarification, the views expressed in this master thesis by my participants do not represent the views of the humanitarian organisations these advocates work for. Assimilating their views with official positions of humanitarian organisations could have dramatic consequences for these organisations, especially when discussing matters of security and access. My aim in this master thesis is to examine the views of humanitarian advocates, and not of the institutions they are employed by, even if I may refer to official positions as complements to the discourses of humanitarian advocates. The arguments, opinions, and claims expressed belong to the humanitarian advocates themselves, and they shall not be considered as spokespersons for the organisations they operate for

4 The response of humanitarian advocates

In this part of my thesis, I analyse the results from the interviews I conducted with humanitarian advocates. I have separated this section into three different themes; the response of humanitarian advocates on the attacks against humanitarian workers (5.1), the response of humanitarian advocates on the nexus (5.2), and the response of humanitarian advocates on the humanitarian principles (5.3). These three themes were three group codes I used in the coding of my data via Atlas.ti, which enabled me to analyse and compare the discussions I had with humanitarian advocates in regards to these specific topics.

(28)

4.1 The response of humanitarian advocates on the attacks

against humanitarian workers

4.1.1 The respect for International Humanitarian Law is eroding

The first theme I discussed with humanitarian advocates is the topic of attacks against humanitarian workers. I wished to engage with this issue by asking a quite difficult question to humanitarian advocates, which is the following: “are humanitarian workers being increasingly targeted?” My objective was not to get a yes or no answer to this query, but rather to open a conversation on these attacks and the threats perceived by humanitarian advocates. Most of my participants rejected the certainty that attacks have increased, mentioning that there exists no particular data that can prove that these attacks have indeed amplified. It would be extremely difficult to prove, even if humanitarian advocates feel as though these attacks have increased. For instance, to measure if violence against humanitarian workers has increased or not, one would have to define what represents “violence” and what is a “humanitarian worker” (Anonymous MSF Advocate A 2019, pers.comm., 26 April). For example, a humanitarian worker could mean someone who works for an international humanitarian organisation, but it could also include local staffs, which are not always considered humanitarian workers. In fact, around 90% of MSF’s employees are local workers (Geoffrey Pinnock 2019, pers.comm., 19 April). Nevertheless, several humanitarians whom I have interviewed used this topic of attacks against humanitarian workers to redirect the issue towards different matters. One particular topic, that almost all of my participants mentioned, was the erosion of the principles of not attacking medical facilities under International Humanitarian Law. This can be seen in the views of this MSF humanitarian advocate, who wishes to remain anonymous:

“((In response to the question: are humanitarian workers being increasingly targeted?)) That’s already a difficult question as the problem is that there is not, maybe not yet, really reliable database that would record attacks on medical and humanitarian instalments and personnel. So it is very difficult to say whether or not attacks have increased. The other issue is that attacks is a very broad term, it includes a number a range of different incidents ranging from aerial bombardments, fire, but also threats, harassments, the use of arms in the immediate facility of hospitals for example,

(29)

etc. So there is a range of different attacks, of different actors, and it’s difficult to really say for sure, whether or not these attacks have increased. Having said that, as humanitarians, there is a clear feeling that the respect for the international humanitarian laws in conflicts is eroding, and we see more and more instances where we are directly targeted for the work that we are doing, for the medical work, basically attacks that aim at disrupting medical work, in areas that are considered to be hostile by a group for example, and then we are directly attacked. And this is something that is really concerning, because a feeling of the erosion of this kind of principles of not targeting humanitarian medical action, in situation of armed violence, this is something that is obviously really concerning to us.” (Anonymous MSF Advocate A 2019, pers.comm., 26 April)

International Humanitarian Law is a set of rules that aims at limiting the effects of armed conflict for humanitarian reasons (ICRC 2004). One of its main purposes is to protect those who are not, or no longer, taking part in fighting a war, and thus protecting the right to operate for hospitals and health workers. This set of international law was mainly signed up during the Geneva Conventions in 1949, and almost every nation in the world has agreed to these principles (ICRC 2004). Under IHL, it is absolutely forbidden to target an enemy that his incapable of fighting, and thus targeting civilians or medical facilities is considered illegal. But these principles that IHL represents have been eroded recently according to humanitarian advocates. Geoffrey Pinnock, a humanitarian affairs advisor working for MSF Operational Centre Amsterdam, expressed a sense of concern on the erosion of these principles, when discussing these attacks during our discussion:

“The most important takeaway (…) is that there is an unacceptable level of deliberate and negligent targeting of humanitarian actors globally. It is not an isolated problem; it is a systematic problem. And it is born out of several different factors, but they include the loss of trust in humanitarian actors as neutral and impartial actors. It includes the general familiarity with concepts of humanitarian law, which is related to globally the big nation states increasingly not respecting and leading by example. So if you are a militia operating in a particular area, and you understand that breaking the norms of international law in that area will demolish your legitimacy as an actor, that legitimacy is important to you and you will if you understand these are the rules of the game. And you understand that the opposition is abiding by these rules of the game;

(30)

rules of the game. And if you have a small tactical advantage that you can gain, let’s say by sequestering the resources, let’s say by paying your men in the ability to target manage of the civilian populations or the aid workers, to deny assistance to populations that you consider to be your enemy; you will take that tactical advantage if there is no strategic disadvantage. By systematically, over a period of time, allowing the basic precepts of international law to be eroded at global international level; that percolates. And so you see transgressions, not only by nation states who are signatories or are responsible internationally, it’s not only national states that are responsible in conflict, but also other non-states actors who everyone think are rogue.”

(Geoffrey Pinnock 2019, pers.comm., 19 April)

The main issue depicted here is that the principles of IHL are not respected by nation states and also the most powerful states that set a bad example for others to follow. What becomes clear is that if governments don’t believe that there will be any type of repercussion on their doings, they will continue to attack medical facilities if it represents a tactical advantage for their operations. This is obviously concerning for humanitarian advocates, who recognize that there is no system of accountability in place to punish those who systematically target medical facilities in their operations. As Larissa Fast (2010) states, whose argument I have described in the theoretical part of my thesis, it is really hard to measure if humanitarian workers have been increasingly targeted. Nonetheless, I argue, like Fast (2010), that humanitarian advocates do have a perception, as witnessed in their discourses, of being under threat. Humanitarian advocates perceive an erosion of the moral principles that protect medical facilities under IHL, which leads to a non-respect of medical operations that are targeted by military powers in recent times. In the next part, I analyse how humanitarian advocates reframe the issue towards the main problem they perceive in regards to those attacks: the disruption of healthcare.

4.1.2 The real tragedy: the denial of medical support for those who need it the most

Interestingly, humanitarian advocates often redirected my focus on humanitarian workers being attacked, towards what they consider to be the real tragedy resulting from these attacks; the interruption of the medical response for those in need. I argue that the response of humanitarian advocates to these attacks is not to primarily

(31)

advocate on the dangers that occur when humanitarian workers operate on the field, but the dangers for the people that can’t access medical assistance. This reframing can be witnessed, for instance, in the views of Inma Wazquez, a humanitarian advocate employed by MSF, answering my question on whether humanitarian workers are being increasingly targeted:

Inma Vazquez: “Ok, I would start by correcting the question. ((laughs)) Laurent Mottier: Let’s do this. ((laughs))

Inma Vazquez: Indeed, because it is very important for us, and we try to insist on this point also with our government interlocutors, and with the UN. The accent has not to be made on humanitarian workers, but on humanitarian action, and most importantly, on people. Meaning, what is happening or these attacks against medical facilities, indeed, are attacks against the medical mission, which means that people in conflict don’t have access to healthcare. And this is very important for any analysis; that it is not because there is a trend that worsen – if you want to call it this way – to say I want to protect my humanitarian workers; it’s not just that. What is important is that all state actors, and non-state actors understand that access to healthcare in conflict areas is the basis of humanitarian work, is the basis of international humanitarian law, and it needs to be respected because today it’s far from being the case.” (Inma Vazquez 2019, pers.comm., 30 April)

This focus on people, on those who need access to healthcare, is essential in the discourse of humanitarian advocates. Sarah Cotton, from ICRC, also developed on this point, reframing the issue towards healthcare rather than the attacks against humanitarian workers:

“We sort of furthered our analysis and realised that the problem was not just the lack of

access to healthcare, which it is also extremely dangerous for healthcare to be given to victims of conflict, but also that this health care is being politicised, even when it’s protected legally in every single legal code going. So the politicisation that it was being directly attacked, that it was being denied, that health care workers themselves were victims of violence and that in itself is a tragedy; but it’s the knock-on effect. And so when you look at your question on violence against humanitarian workers as well, that’s sad. But humanitarian workers at the end of the day choose to be where they are,

Threats to humanitarianism today : analysing the response of humanitarian advocates