Humanitarian action: a Just action?

[Fuchs]

This topic reminds me of stories about how
- refugee camp services prolong the refugee status and prevent resettlement, thereby keeping conflicts and problems intact
- U.N.-imposed ceasefires regularly fail to solve anything, and even prevent a violent but quick conflict solution.

War is full of (seeming) paradoxes.

[Rex Brynen]

- U.N.-imposed ceasefires regularly fail to solve anything, and even prevent a violent but quick conflict solution.

The UN hardly ever "imposes" a ceasefire, and generally lacks the capability of doing so. Usually it is called in to monitor and implement a ceasefire that has been reached by the combatants themselves. (Certainly, the UN may help mediate the negotiations, but that's hardly imposition.)

I agree with the broader point, however--war is full of paradoxes.

[M-A Lagrange]

First of all thank to all of you for participating to that debate. I just want to give some few comments that will either resume opinions, either complete some, either integrate practical perspective.

The research for a just use of violence:
Looking for a moral justification to war is indeed an old issue. The Hindu set rules forward in -1750 through the code of Manu. The Babylonians legislated on war in -1500 with the Code of Hammurabi. The Muslims stated that the use of chemical weapons and non discriminative weapons were forbidden as immoral after Constantinople siege…
The research for Just war is as old as war practice. Jus in bello and Jus at bellum are middle age notions. War is part of humanity and it is its practice that defines our humanity.
Separating military and civilian first as actors then as practices in war is important, just as separating military from humanitarian is. But it is limitative.
The separation between Humanitarian action and military action is based on the universal search of all to exclude parts of the populations from war into conflicts.

Unjust humanitarian action:
As Tom said, it is difficult to help people with blood on their hands. I experimented the same twisted feeling in my first mission in Kosovo as I was providing aid to Serbs. It feels really "strange" to remain neutral when having a toast in the name of the great Serbia and killing all the Albanian slaves...
An unjust humanitarian action could be partly defined on the choice: who you decide to help. This is a discriminative approach which is not in accordance with humanitarian doctrine/principles. It is also the military approach of humanitarian aid and leads to its militarisation. Does that mean it is an unjust action? I would be very glad to have both opinion (civilian and military or veteran) on that point.

Just humanitarian action:
The theories of Do No Harm is an important theory and difficult practice. It has been well pointed that most of experienced humanitarian workers, donors and other civilian actors in relief are aware of it.
Does that mean that being aware makes your action Just?
And even, looking at practices based on legal status as refugee, IDP... leads to discriminative actions led by civilian, targeting civilian, almost not integrated into military plans. Do no harm recommends to use a vulnerability approach. But is that sufficient? Or efficient? And is that Just?

Practical approach
But boundaries between military action and humanitarian action are getting thinner if not relegated to moral postures; as the distinction between military and civilian.
The actual doctrine in Afghanistan is to convince civilian that they have to choose a political master rather than one other.
In South Sudan, war was politically won through humanitarian action.
In North Kivu, military are using humanitarian aid to monitor and restrain military misbehaviours.
Humanitarian actors and humanitarian action is no more (if ever had) a hippie stuff. It is a complex civilian action into a complex military environment. What would be the limit to keep humanitarian action Just?
If humanitarian action allows providing direct security or support security action, is that still humanitarian action? And is that unjust?

The "Jus" in war:
Carl Schmitt exposed the limit of the Just War as an eternal unjust battle from a moral dictator that justifies on its victories the rightness of his cause.
He point was based on his experience of the nazi regime that can be seen as Evil but would have been seen as Good if they had won the war.
Is their such limits in humanitarian action? And what could be humanitarian limits?

I know, I am asking more questions. But I believe that answering to those questions is important for all of us that are participating to conflict and trying to provide protection to civilian populations.
If some points are not taken or misunderstood: please let me know. (I am human, that my strength and wickness.)

[William F. Owen]

But boundaries between military action and humanitarian action are getting thinner if not relegated to moral postures; as the distinction between military and civilian.

So humanitarian action includes the use of violence? Military action is always instrumental to policy. I fail to see how humanitarian aid can do the same, unless it can set forth a policy, in which case it is merely political - since it does not use violance.

The actual doctrine in Afghanistan is to convince civilian that they have to choose a political master rather than one other.

Is that a doctrine or is it's a policy. - the distinction is important.
IMO, the policy, being applied by the strategy, is to have a stable essentially pro-western government. I fully agree that the strategy could well use humanitarian aid, as an instrument - and where possible it should be done.

[Stan]

So humanitarian action includes the use of violence?

Hmmm, that depends I reckon. Our decade long humanitarian program includes the persistent use of explosives

[M-A Lagrange]

Humanitarian action does not include the use of violence. But can participate to protect populations by providing alternatives, especially economical alternatives, that can participate in destabilising an opponent.
In DRC, by providing alternative sources of energy, some NGO participate to the effort to undermine FDLR incomes linked to charcoal trafficking.
Like I said, the boundaries between humanitarian action and military action are getting thinner. I am not judging, I am making an observation.

I accept the go for it. I did it my self. But would that be humanitarian or military?

[Stan]

In DRC, by providing alternative sources of energy, some NGO participate to the effort to undermine FDLR incomes linked to charcoal trafficking.

We also tried that as an active military mission by supplying drinking water. Little did we know the Zairois were selling water to the refugees and we put a dent in their business (practices). It wasn't long before this humanitarian act went Tango Uniform with violence (at the water point).

There is simply no way you can remain (or claim) neutral(ity). It sounds good on paper with all those conventions, but the stark reality is people like the Congolese do not follow the same set of rules.

[M-A Lagrange]

Is that a doctrine or is it's a policy. - the distinction is important.

From Wilf: IMO, the policy, being applied by the strategy, is to have a stable essentially pro-western government. I fully agree that the strategy could well use humanitarian aid, as an instrument - and where possible it should be done.

Thanks for correcting me. As I said, professional are much more than welcome to comment.