Humanitarian Assistance: Conflict Zones

Humanitarian assistance needs to provide security, not be given security. If it is safety that an affected group needs, this is what humanitarian agencies should provide. This logic complies with the definition of humanitarian assistance based on independence, neutrality, and impartiality principles. Once humanitarian agents need security to provide aid, they are automatically picking a side to support. This situation just increases the threats faced by humanitarian groups. Bolletino defends security for humanitarian agents and argues that the main structural and procedural issues impeding more effective security management are i) lack of strategic thinking, ii) disconnection in decision-making, and iii) inadequate risk assessment tools. The solution seems to be the creation of a wide network that systematically collect and exchange anecdotal reporting on the field security environment. Humanitarian assistance is not effective even in the absence of such obstacles. Assuming that humanitarian agents can safely deliver aid, they are still the target of local groups since the provision of aid is always politically perceived. By choosing a group to support, humanitarian agencies show whom they favor in the aftermath of disastrous events. This situation only exacerbates rather than attenuates local inequalities. Security is not about guns but justice. Countries, regions, and cities become more secure if they are given the chance to politically and economically participate in the global market and decisions. If they are systematically excluded, their voices are constantly ignored and whenever a disaster strikes, there is a great lack of knowledge on the real causes of unexpected outcomes. Humanitarian assistance is about supporting a collectivity to protect themselves and by themselves before a disaster strikes. Reference: Bolletino, V. “Understanding the security management practices of humanitarian organizations”, Disasters, v. 32, i. 2, pp. 263-279, 2008.