This paper will address the dilemma that is created in distributing humanitarian aid in the Democratic Republic of Congo of Rwandan refugees. The question that the paper will be attempting to answer will be: should humanitarian aid be distributed based on the concepts of new humanitarianism or traditional humanitarianism, in particular of the case of Rwandan refugees. The position of this paper will be that humanitarian aid should be based on traditional humanitarianism and the concept of humanity, which will be more clearly defined in the paper.
Traditional humanitarianism states that humanitarian aid should be based on a sole goal of helping to alleviate suffering of the population in question (Vayrynen, 1999). Traditionalists also state that in order to effectively distribute aid to the population, there has to be neutrality. So, the aid organizations would not support any party, the victims or the people committing the crimes. The impartiality principle is fundamental to the Traditionalists but has led to much controversy in the past two decades (Fox, 2001). New humanitarianism believes that humanitarian aid should not be only based on the concept of humanity but also of publicity. New humanitarians state that in order to really alleviate human suffering the problems of the state has to be publicized. In this case, the humanitarian aid organizations are involved in politics of the state.
This paper will discuss how the usage of new humanitarian has failed to solve the problems of refugees by either making the problem worse or violating the principle of humanity. Rwandan refugees in DRC are an example how new humanitarianism was used and violated the fundamental principle of humanity. In order to understand the Rwandan refugee situation, the history of the Rwandan genocide will be discussed. The term “refugee” will be defined (Lischer, 2003). The methods of distributing aid and what has happened to the aid in the refugee camps will be stated (Leriche, 2004). Humanitarian aid distribution in the case of Rwandan refugees has often been of abuse and mismanagement. The lack of proper distribution of aid has led to war economies that harbor and indirectly support genocide committers (Lischer, 2003).
When the Hutus were pushed into refugee camps in Zaire, the humanitarian aid organizations were provided relief. After two years, aid organizations began to realize that they were supporting a re-emerge of Hutu military in the camps. The former Hutu military personnel, due to mismanagement, captured most humanitarian aid. Even though there were hundreds of thousands of starving Hutu women, children, and men, many aid organizations felt that they were abetting in uprising of the Hutu military. Many aid organizations packed up and left the camps because they were no longer allowed into the camps due to their public outcry. In 1994, the number of aid organizations in the camps went from 150 to less than 10 (Fox, 2001).
New humanitarians claim that this is not going to solve the larger refugee problem because the aid has been supporting the military combatants in the camps. Fiona Fox, in “A New Humanitarianism: A New Morality for the 21st Century?”, states that new humanitarianism seems to only target aid to states that agree with Western human rights standards and the states that do not are left to their own devices. As a conclusion, humanitarian aid is being used as a political strategy to control the developing world. In the Rwandan refugee camps the refugees were encouraged to go back into Rwanda from DRC, but most refugees were reluctant to go back. So in order to force the refugees to return to Rwanda, the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees withheld essential medical supplies and limited food rations. Over one million Rwandan refugees crossed from DRC back into Rwanda. It was argued that the forceful return of the Rwandan refugees were essential to the long-term stability of area (Fox, 2001).
The case studies of the Cambodian Kumer Rouge, Afghan Mujadideen, Milosovic in Yugoslavia, and Ethiopian famine will also be discussed to should how new humanitarianism and traditional humanitarianism was used. The humanitarian aid organization, the American Red Cross, will be used the major example of traditional humanitarianism and Doctors Without Borders will be an example of new humanitarianism.
Fox, Fiona. “New Humanitarianism: Does It Provide a Moral Banner for the 21st Century?” Disasters 25.4 (2001): 275-89.
LeRiche, Matthew. “Unintended Alliance: The Co-option of Humanitarian Aid in Conflicts.” Parameters 2004: 104-20.
Lischer, Sarah Kenyon. “Collateral Damage: Humanitarian Assistance as a Cause of Conflict.” International Security 28.1 (2003): 79-109.
Vayrynen, Raimo. “More Questions than Answers: Dilemmas of Humanitarian Action.” Peace and Change 24.2 (1999): 172-96.
Hi Samema,
Although your position paper states clearly enough that your position will be in favor of traditional humanitarianism, the points of debate are not yet clear. Each of the sources you have drawn on here warrant much more description of their main argument and how it factors into your thinking. The problem may be that you have had a chance to write a paper on this topic from your previous classes and are now relying too much on it. Those courses and your writing in them will give you a good sense of the larger picture, but in order for you to make that picture accessible to others, you will need to start more from scratch. By that I mean that it will be necessary to lay the framework more carefully. That’s why there is such an emphasis at the outset of this course in your honing you ability to indicate a source’s argument, indicate how it supports or disagrees with other leading ideas, and evaluate it in terms of your own views. Work on that for your annotations.
In this paper, many of the terms remain ambiguous: the key ones (why new, why traditional and what is the time-frame for these?); publicity (does this really mean politicization?); principle of humanity (is this from Human Rights Declaration?) Work on making these clear to your readers.
In some respects, this paper is a little closer to a Proposal in terms of saying what you propose to argue and why. As you read Chapters 7 and 8, look for ways to comply with the discussions there on how to make claims and support them clearly. This will help guide your proposal. And give a general idea of how your paper will be organized in terms of background of the situation at hand, the debate about which kind of aid helps what, the critique of each form, and possible avenues of future aid.