Humanitarian organizations have moved to incorporate human rights and development into their increasingly politicized agendas. Yet in the process, they have abandoned the neutrality and independence that were the original hallmarks of the movement. Few seem to notice what is being lost.
David Rieff is a journalist and a Visiting Professor at Bard College. This article is adapted from his latest book, A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis, to be published by Simon & Schuster. Copyright (c) 2002 by David Rieff.
We're sorry, but Foreign Affairs does not have the copyright to display this article online.
Related
Throughout the humanitarian crises of the 1990s, the international community failed to come up with rules on how and when to intervene, and under whose authority. Despite the new focus on terrorism, these debates will not go away. The issue must be reframed as an argument not about the "right to intervene" but about the "reponsibility to protect" that all sovereign states owe to their citizens.
The UN's need for means of military enforcement was foreseen by the Charter, and the post-Cold War international scene is likely, as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait showed, to require such means to be available. However, the lack of a standing force means that enforcement has always had to be improvised. However, in cases involving major commitment, such as the Gulf war, such an approach "is not likely to be viable unless the vital interests of one or more major military powers is at risk", a limitation which detracts from the global security missions of the UN. A more promising alternative is to create a system for the provision of forces under contract between member states and the UN. A discussion of the contractual and operational command issues involved in such a proposal.
Despite solemn vows of "never again," the United States has repeatedly allowed genocide to occur over the last 50 years. Samantha Power's important new book explains why.
