Episode #270: Revolutionizing Relief
Adelina Kamal, formerly of the AHA Centre, returns to the podcast to pick up where she left off in her initial interview, which discussed ASEAN’s shortfalls and mistakes in addressing Myanmar’s humanitarian crisis. Here, she tackles the problem of politicization in the humanitarian aid sector, and critiques its current well-meaning but ineffective, top-down approach that overlooks the needs and desires of aid recipients.
“The default approach of the international humanitarian community [towards] the crisis has been a mismatch. It fails to understand the context,” she says, adding an exasperated laugh. “And why? Because they fail to listen effectively to the voices of the people! Or perhaps they listen, but they don't do [anything]. The humanitarian system—not only the approach, but the system itself— has been a misfit, because it has been done in such a vertical, top-down approach, including ASEAN; and very segmented, differentiating between human rights and humanitarian, and the peace and the development sector.” She sharply calls out the politicization of humanitarian assistance that has resulted from this approach.
However, Adelina stresses that this is not the only issue that plagues the field. Another actually stems from the very principles that humanitarians such as Henry Dunant, who founded the International Committee of the Red Cross, established for this kind of aid: namely, the importance of providing aid without regard to political, religious, or ideological affiliations. Adelina recounts that while traveling through various capitals of the world, to raise funds for people in Myanmar, she frequently heard remarks like, “Well, I really know what you're doing is basically asking for support for the pro-democracy movement! That is for another stream of funding, not for humanitarian. When it comes to humanitarian (aid), we have to follow the human principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence.’” However, Adelina emphasizes that these principles are ill-suited to a contentious climate like contemporary Myanmar, and how a rigid adherence to even those otherwise praiseworthy principles can sometimes impede the support for populations suffering under oppressive regimes. She goes so far as to call neutrality a “right” and a “privilege,” and one that is flatly being denied to the Burmese people today.
Instead, Adelina champions what is called “humanitarian resistance,” a term coined by Hugo Slim, as an alternative approach. Paraphrasing Slim, she notes how “you can be humanitarian, though you are not neutral. We call it the ‘humanitarian resistance approach,’ because neutrality is not for everyone. We’re taking sides, [but] it doesn't mean that you're not doing humanitarian work.” Slim cites numerous successful historical examples of non-neutral humanitarian work, notably humanitarians and diplomats who conspired in and before WWII to save civilians from concentration camps; that is, taking sides against the Nazis to serve the greater good.
Reflecting the voices of people inside Myanmar, it is clear to Adelina that this approach is not only moral, but indeed a pragmatic necessity, because resistance and humanitarian groups in Myanmar refuse to work with organizations that do not reject the junta outright. “I was invited by the local actors to go to the field,” she says, “I went to the Thai-Myanmar border, and also talked to those operating in the India-Myanmar border. I talked to the front-liners, the women and all that, and they told me: ‘Basically the number one principle, Adelina: no junta at all! But also not working with anyone working with the junta and not receiving money from anyone working with the junta, not receiving money with anyone who got registered with the junta;’ whatever it is, so it's like a complete disengagement with the junta!”
It was after this experience that Adelina read Slim’s article on humanitarian resistance, which fundamentally changed the way she approached this conflict. “This has been practiced in Myanmar. This is exactly what I saw on the ground!” With that in mind, Adelina set out to write an article clearly laying out the best approach for supporting the Myanmar people, both more effectively and more ethically. Adelina wrote that when considering all options, it is more ethical for humanitarians to abandon Myanmar entirely than it is to only engage with the junta. In short, if “humanitarian neutrality” is an unshakeable principle, then non-engagement is the only moral course of action. “Leaving the country and dropping your operation is still better and [more] ethical than continuing to work through the junta,” she says simply.
This of course raises the question: why do so many organizations continue to remain in the country, forcing them to stay engaged with the junta even though it compromises the effectiveness of their aid program—and in the process, helps prop up a murderous regime? “The only reason for INGOs to remain engaged is money!” she exclaims. “Sorry, I had to say [it]!” In other words, her experience has been that within the international community, it’s not a case of doing good so much as being seen to be doing good, and that many in the INGO world are uninterested in humanitarian work that doesn’t bring them prestige and lucrative funding opportunities.
She continues, “[The humanitarian sector] has become very much professionalized! It has become an industry, and I think it has lost its soul. If you asked those who worked for the humanitarian sector in the beginning, like in the 1970s, when these people before were really like pure-hearted missionaries, yeah, they did good things. But right now, the humanitarian system is filled not only by the good and light-hearted missionaries, but also mercenaries and misfits … Right now, it has become such a big industry, that is more of ‘survival of the fittest,’ and trying to make sure to prove to the donors that they can deliver. It is more donor-centric than affected-population-centric! It's not based on the needs of the population, but on what the donors want.” To Adelina, it is fundamentally untrue that INGOs couldn’t still play an important role if they rejected an association with the military, and moved their operations out of Myanmar. There are many ways they could continue to meet local humanitarian needs from across the border, perhaps most critically, by supporting local aid groups that official, military channels for humanitarian aid currently prevent access to!
In addition, although major INGOs bring in a lot of money from major donors, many have large operational costs. Moreover, because they are forced to work with the junta, they also lose significant dollars through what Adelina plainly describes as “fraud.” So they tend to be significantly less effective in the long run than local actors. For this reason, Adelina again points to the importance of supporting local organizations, and emphasizes the importance of diaspora groups in sending funds to affected regions. Yet because these major but less effective players are all vying for the attention of the biggest donors, they end up sucking most of the air out of fundraising, making it even harder for the smaller, more effective organizations to raise the money they need.
Returning to the core issue of why effective and decisive action is not taken in Myanmar, Adelina distills a complex issue down to its essence. “To me, the Western governments’ support to the Myanmar people is more of a token, because after all, aid is a political tool.” In other words, if the international community really wanted to more effectively support the Burmese people, they would. “At the end of the day,” she concludes, “it's about political will.”
We invite readers to explore the additional articles by Adelina Kamal: