Blog 4 - Amelia Xi

According to Linda Polman, there are three Red Cross principles—neutrality, independence, and impartiality—that humanitarians carry before them like a shield and think that principles are more important than their consequence. It is apparent that these principles are rarely reflected in humanitarian practices under such an ethical environment in the war zone. In the article Aid As a Weapon of War, Polman argues, “Once inside a war zone, it’s essential to have a blind spot for matters of ethics. Warlords and regimes deluge INGOs with taxes, often invented on the spot: import duties on aid supplies, fees for visas and work permits, harbor and airport taxes, income taxes, road taxes, and permits for cars and trucks. The proceeds go straight into their war chests. Chiefs and generals often demand to be compensated for the use made by aid organizations of water from village pumps. There are even taxes for the ‘use’ by INGOs of children for vaccination and casualties for rehabilitation.” In addition, exchange rates applied to the foreign currency of humanitarians are also seen as a gold mine to the warlords. The efforts of many NGOs are restrained and taken advantages of in the war zone. Warlords always try to take as much of the value of aid supplies as they can. These findings had Polman question whether the positive effects of aid balance its exploitation by warring parities, and at what point do humanitarian principles cease to be ethical.

Polman regards aid organizations as “businesses dressed up like Mother Teresa” because many aid organizations’ original goal has been distorted. As she mentioned in her article “Irrespective of the consequences for the length and ferocity of wars, INGOs and MONGOs—and indeed journalists—are free to make agreements, pacts, contracts, and deals at their own discretion with wannabe presidents, tribal chiefs, warlords, troublemakers…and underworld figures reincarnated as paramilitaries, at village, regional, or national levels. ‘Humanitarian territories in war zones’ are free markets where anyone can set out his aid stall, as long as he can agree to terms with local power brokers.” Instead of solely focusing on helping people, an increasing number of aid organizations and donors have begun to compete with each other like what happens in the business field. What’s worse, according to Polman, manipulation of aids channels are not punished. Even underperforming or pointless projects can have their funding renewed.

Everyone bears responsibility to make humanitarian aid successful. First of all, Journalists need to question aid organizations. They need to ask detailed and precise questions about how much money was being raked off and by whom, whether the aid workers had the proper diplomas for aid work, whether they were paying due attention to the rights of residents and so on. Journalists have the obligation to make aid organizations truthful and transparent in front of public. Secondly, as donors to aid operations ourselves, we as the public should recognize our responsibilities. While we have tremendous amount of money to spend on cosmetic surgery, maybe we should consider using more of our money to help those who really need it for foods and clothes. And also very importantly, governments need to use law force to ensure that all humanitarian communities are in their full control of their resources and thus minimize contributions to the war economy.

References:

Linda Polman, Aid as A Weapon of War . Polman Crisis Caravan (pg. 96-105)
Linda Polman, Afterword: Ask Them Questions. Polman Crisis Caravan (pg. 172-179)