Neo-Humanitarianism: The Role of International Humanitarian Norms and Organizations in Contemporary Conflict

Abstract

The circumstances and nature of humanitarianism have changed in recent years. The traditional ideals of neutrality, impartiality, and independence have become myth. Rather than being at the margins of conflict, humanitarianism is now e mbedded within contemporary conflict. States use humanitarian norms and actors for their own ends, frequently as a response international pressure intervene in conflicts. Such actions, as well as those on the part of international humanitarian organizations and other nonstate actors, have altered the terrain of humanitarian action. KEYWORDS: armed conflict, humanitarianism, international humanitarian organizations, NGOs, norms. ********** On 7 October 2001, about two hours after the United States started bombing Afghanistan, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated that one of the six goals of the military operations was to provide humanitarian relief Afghans suffering truly oppressive living conditions under the Taliban regime. (1) Given the fact that the Bush administration had portrayed the conflict with the Taliban and Al-Qaida as a fight for national, and indeed civilizational, survival, why would Rumsfeld feel it necessary, or even desirable, include the seemingly unrelated issue of humanitarian relief as one of the major goals of the war? What I would like suggest is that global humanitarian action, and discourse over such action, has become such an increasingly visible feature of international relations that it has insinuated itself into a variety of political and operational situations. In fact, humanitarian norms have become so important that they force their way into the general discourse of war and peace. Furthermore, humanitarianism has become an extremely valuable public relations tool. Thus, a U.S. secretary of defense finds it useful use humanitarianism justify waging war in a remote corner of the world (from the perspective of the United States) and, in fact, may have felt normative pressure do so. In this article, I argue that because of the changing nature of conflict, and other broad changes in international relations, we are entering an era of what I call neo-humanitarianism, which is characterized by the embeddedness of humanitarianism within, rather than at the margins of, contemporary conflict. It is distinguished by the explicit manipulation of humanitarianism for political or military gain on the ground in a conflict or as a substitute for political and military action. As a result, international humanitarian organizations (IHOs) (2) have found themselves being manipulated by a wide range of actors in the middle of conflict. At the same time, they have participated in this transformation of humanitarianism. The main questions be addressed in this article are: Why is neutral humanitarianism increasingly becoming a fiction? Why do states turn humanitarian actors? What are the implications of state reliance on humanitarian actors? What are the effects on these organizations and on humanitarian action more broadly? How do IHOs affect the conflict environment? What role do humanitarian norms play in conflict today? One of the main humanitarian actors is the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Traditional theory would suggest that such an organization, being part of an intergovernmental body, would simply carry out the wishes of the larger state-based body and, further, that it could have no independent effects itself. However, Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore, who look at the creation and role of international governmental organizations (IGOs) from sociological bureaucratic and constructivist perspectives point out that bureaucracies frequently do not do exactly what their originators intended them do. We accept this when discussing, for example, domestic foreign policy bureaucracies but still seem have a blind spot when it comes international bureaucratic actors. …