NGOs, abuses and continuation of the colonial project
In many ways, the Oxfam sexual misconduct scandal is just a symptom of the core illnesses that the humanitarian system is suffering from. Of course, the system is complex and it is not easy to change.
THE global humanitarian community is again in confusion. The Oxfam sexual misconduct scandal in Haiti has made headlines. Policymakers and humanitarian leaders everywhere talk about the need for change. Over the last 30 years or so, there have been many scandals and much demand for reform. However, business just continues as usual.
According to Reuters, last year Save the Children Fund claimed they fired 16 staff members over reports of sexual harassment and Oxfam reported it dismissed 22 of its staff.
There are similar reports by various humanitarian agencies. What is terrifying is that the same person who quit his role with Oxfam in 2011 after being accused of using sex workers while working in Haiti, was engaging in similar acts in 2006 during his time working for charity in Chad. Oxfam knew about this, but went ahead and sent this person to work in Haiti anyway.
Anyone connected to the humanitarian world knows about the scandals of sexual misconduct, corruption, discrimination, racism and many other issues in the system.
In many ways, the Oxfam sexual misconduct scandal is just a symptom of the core illnesses that the humanitarian system is suffering from. Of course, the system is complex and it is not easy to change. It is one of the very few careers one could enter without any formal qualifications. A colleague from Afghanistan once told me international humanitarian workers comprise three categories: missionaries (those who come to help and change the affected communities), misfits (those who do not fit in their own societies, so they become humanitarian workers) and mercenaries (those who come for the money). Of course, there are honest, committed and genuine humanitarian workers, however, they are a minority and most of the time leave the field in frustration.
Since 2004, teaching in many higher education programmes in the UK on disaster management, humanitarian affairs, peace-building and sustainable development programmes, has brought me into contact with many young North American and European students who want to become humanitarian workers. They want to go to Africa, Asia and the Middle East to help people. Keeping in line with the Croatian Austrian philosopher Ivan Illich, I always suggest that they should think about helping the refugees, homeless and poor people in their own countries. Few decide to do so. Regardless of all the issues, the humanitarian industry is growing. Since 1989, it has grown from some $0,5 billion to some $22 billion in 2018.
The responses to international crises are organised on a fast-phase, topdown and resource-heavy basis. In a model of universal governance, the humanitarian responses are driven by specialised UN agencies and NGOs.
In this specialisation, the responses are delivered within a medicalised approach diagnosis and intervention.
At the same time, the humanitarian system is suffering from under-capacity and many other problems within.
It is also common knowledge that contemporary humanitarian structures are shaped by the philosophical and value systems of Europe and North America, which are predominantly Christian. At the same time, a large proportion of humanitarian funding is channelled towards the Muslim world.
According to the Global Humanitarian Overview (2018), the 2017 humanitarian response plans are dominated by Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, occupied Palestinian territories, Libya and many other Muslim countries. It is also no secret that the United States uses humanitarian assistance as an extension of its foreign policy while the European Union uses it as a substitute for foreign policy.
In this, the contemporary humanitarian system is part of the global intervention to change the social, cultural, economic, political and environmental architecture of countries without the consent of the people.
In my mind, this is a continuation of the colonial project. Support for regime changes, lack of accountability and ongoing racism in the humanitarian system have helped destabilise countries in the grip of natural disasters such as Haiti and Nepal, while at the same time it is estimated that only about one percent of humanitarian funds reach the affected populations as was the case in West Africa during the Ebola crisis.
Keeping in line with the colonial project, the humanitarian system largely assumes affected populations are vulnerable and need assistance and deliver aid based on this assumption. The reality is most disaster and conflict-affected populations in Asia, Africa and the Middle East have been experiencing these dangers for centuries.
Most of them have been colonised by the European powers and still continued to be hampered by global economic interests.
In this, most populations in disaster and conflict-affected countries in the world have developed sophisticated yet pragmatic approaches to effectively deal with uncertainty and danger. This is the type of wisdom and local knowledge of people which the humanitarian system has over and over failed to recognise.
The Tsunami Evaluation Coalition Report on the 2004 tsunami response by the International humanitarian system (TEC, 2007) heavily criticised the lack of genuine engagement and collaboration with the affected populations. It further recommended the international humanitarian agencies recognise the capabilities of affected populations and their skills and knowledge. The TEC Report strongly recommended the international humanitarian system establish formal performance feedback and begin to measure the improvements undertaken by international actors.