Email 
Print 
Georgia: The militarization of humanitarian action
Written by: Joel Charny
Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.
People crowd around a bus distributing humanitarian aid in the Georgian town of Gori near South Ossetia August 17, 2008.
REUTERS/Gleb Garanich (GEORGIA)
REUTERS/Gleb Garanich (GEORGIA)
The United States response to the displacement crisis in Georgia resulting from the conflict with Russia over the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is a blatant example of the increasing militarization of humanitarian action. Refugees International has been expressing deep concerns about this trend in Africa, but the Georgia response takes it to a new level. Humanitarian response is supposed to embody the following principles: humanity (responding where the need is greatest; independence (responding based solely on the vulnerability of the individuals in distress rather than reflecting the priorities of other actors); impartiality (responding without applying political criteria or supporting any particular government or political movement). Describing the U.S. response to the current situation in Georgia as a "humanitarian mission" is therefore a serious distortion. The President and the Secretaries of State and Defense, while insisting on the humanitarian nature of the U.S. response, chose to have the Pentagon lead it, with the Air Force organizing relief flights and joining with the Army in distributing the supplies. While the Air Force in an August 14 press release pays lip service to supporting coordination by the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development with Georgian officials, the face of the relief effort is clearly a military one. While the Pentagon insists, according to the same Air Force press release that its "sole goal is to safely and rapidly deliver humanitarian aid ... to alleviate human suffering and save lives," these goals could have been accomplished through U.S. support to humanitarian agencies such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, both of which have the logistical capability to respond quickly to emergencies in Europe. A senior Pentagon official quoted in The New York Times was more honest: the relief effort was intended "to show Russia that we can come to the aid of a European ally, and that we can do it at will, whenever and wherever we want." Secretary Rice told her Russian counterpart that the presence of American troops in the aid mission will allow the U.S. to monitor Russia's adherence to the cease-fire agreement brokered by France's President Sarkozy. We are far outside the realm of humanitarian principle here. The needs of the Georgian people could have been met through a normal aid response mounted by the UN system, the Red Cross, and non-governmental organizations, all of which have been present in the country for many years. This is not a tsunami-type disaster that demands special logistical assets to bring in supplies or reach vulnerable people. U.S. military involvement was only necessary to provide political support to an ally in danger. If this is in the strategic interest of the United States, so be it. But don't use humanitarian action as a cover for what is obviously a political-military support operation. What's disturbing is that no one in the public realm is challenging the Bush Administration on its manipulation of humanitarianism. Judging from press accounts to date, Pentagon leadership in the response to civilian needs in Georgia is being taken at face value, as something that is appropriate under the circumstances. This undercuts the civilian arms of the U.S. government and ultimately jeopardizes the overall effectiveness of relief efforts, as well as threatening the integrity and safety of independent humanitarian organizations as they work in an environment dominated by military forces.
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
We welcome argument but AlertNet will not publish comments that are racist, abusive or libellous.
2 responses to “Georgia: The militarization of humanitarian action”
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
Leave a Reply
When you submit a comment to us we request your name, e-mail address and optionally a link to a website. Please note where you submit a website address, we may link to it via your name. By sending us a comment, you accept that we have the right to show the comment and your name to users. Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily. Additionally, if you would like your comment removed at anytime, you'll have to use this e-mail address when you contact us. To remove a comment at any time please e-mail us at blogs-(at)-reuters-(dot)-com (address obscured to avoid spam) specifying who you are and what you would like removed. We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information. We reserve the right to edit comments in order to maintain the quality of the comments, and may not include links to irrelevant material. We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous. Reuters will use your data in accordance with Reuters privacy policy. Reuters Group is primarily responsible for managing your data. As Reuters is a global company your data will be transferred and available internationally, including in countries which do not have privacy laws but Reuters seeks to comply with its privacy policy.
All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content in this article, including by framing or by similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
22 Aug 2008 02:04:08 GMT
I am in agreement about lines being crossed here on the humanitarian side, but I get upset as well when people throw stones and don't see obvious realities. I am being devils advocate here but don't even try to tell me Relief International or even the regal ICRC for that matter has not crossed those lines as well. Can any humanitarian organization REALLY say that it has 100% impartiality and it looks JUST to the given need when they respond to a crisis and not just what it wants to give or what donors have to give? What countries do have the greatest funding? Do they not receive most of their funding from the US government or other governments again for those same projects that may or not be just what the crisis needs and also responses in countries with the greatest US interests? Haven't many in the humanitarian community complained that funding the UN and NGOs in this type of crisis is a lame excuse for no real political action? OK maybe this kind of "humanitarian action" is a new kind of political action and maybe if we called it something else everyone would be happy?
I guess I am tired of all of the throwing of stones by the same humanitarian organizations that have just as many faults as those who fund them. Instead of the continual one off criticism why doesn't the humanitarian community take a very SERIOUS look at itself. It is broken too, I don't know how many programs I have evaluated or seen out in the field where what the beneficiaries were given were not what they wanted or needed and in the end the programs did not accomplish anything except a simple bandaid for much bigger political, economic or social problem. WE all need to LOSE the ego and get to ADVOCATING more cohesively and WORKING MORE TOGETHER for the beneficiaries we are supposed to be serving. I find that NGOs are consistently criticizing the military (at times for good reason) but never facing todayâs realities that the military is working in MANY of the same places now that we humanitarians do. Are we as humanitarians doing all we should to advise the military or teach it what it could be doing to help the people without crossing lines? In the end is this action really hurting beneficiaries or could it possibly be a way of protecting them in a different way? After seeing what happened in Darfur, I wish something like this happened there and know that things are still happening and still fear for the worst. Is blaming the US government for everything, or really any government for that matter, going to solve anything??? All very frustrating....but my advice is stop criticizing and start trying new things, seeking answers and quit doing the same old same old to try and solve problems.06 Sep 2008 11:48:29 GMT
US military providing humanitarian aid is not a new phenomenom. Myanmar, Afghanistan, Tsunami... It is clear the motives are ulterior.
The worst effect is (as in the last paragraph of your article) "(it is) threatening the integrity and safety of independent humanitarian organizations as they work in an environment dominated by military forces." It is clear aidworkers are more and more exposed to threats of terrorists, bandits and violent opportunists. The link between the US and aidworkers/aidorganisations has directly contributed to an increased targetting of aidworkers abroad. See the bombing of the UN offices in Algeria and Baghdad, but also many of the attacks on individual aidworkers in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia... The US is not doing the world any favours. But then again, we knew that a long time already. Read also the article "UN and US, more than one letter of difference?"