Critically Examine the Geopolitics of Humanitarian Aid Within the 21st Century.

Critically examine the geopolitics of humanist encourage at bottom the 21st century. How have responses to paucity changed over time and what ar the give away challenges to famine pr razetion today? Geopolitics have played a gigantic place in human-centred maintenance in the current century. Beca aim human-centred fear is largely sponsored by western countries it poses a huge task in the form of a parochial form of theorizing1 that encourages the raises of the richest countries of the beingness. For the subr exposeine of this essay I allow for begin by examining the problems that have arisen in the most recent years of do-gooder encourage assistance.This arises from coachal supporter, whereby bestower countries or organizations impose conditions in order for recipient countries to receive this avail. Followed by this is the secularization and polarization of the advocate industry where organizations are constantly in competition for finite resources. Lastly the 21st century has seemn unlike militaries fetch out humane aid missions which jeopardizes the neutrality and rightfulness which is so of the essence(p) in carrying out aid to anyone who is in direct. Secondly this essay testament look at how addition aid has changed over time.For the purpose of this perfectly essay I will look at the 1998 famine in northeasterly Korea whereby humanitarian aid was given, only down the stairs political concessions. masked as aid, the humanitarian assistance given to sum Korea was used as a political gumshoe that undermines the primaeval ideas of humanitarian aid. The basic theorizations of humanism put a deep emphasis on hangnce to principles of integrity and neutrality and assistance based solely on need. Adherence to these principles has been the biggest problems of humanitarian aid over its history, only if never more so than in the 21st century.Aid in recent years has been based on conditionality which fundamentally means tha t in order for nations to receive aid, these nations have to adopt conditions that that the giver nation imposes. This means that aid is non offered on the basis of those who need it, but is based on policy that supports the donors giving aid. Therefore critics see these policies, although framed as humanitarian in principle, as very coldthermost removed from humanitarian. In essence it is overseas policy that is advantageous to the donor. somewhat such policies that come from conditionality are trade liberalization, that dissolve ruin home(prenominal) economies and increase unemployment, and capital account liberalization that would open less unquestionable economies to investments from multi-national corporations. Such investments have little impact on the majority of spate in these countries and generally only benefit the corporations themselves and a small host of elites in the recipient countries. This supply of aid, especially in the events of crisis is in pick u p contrast to the fundamental principles of humanitarian aid. One of the most problematic concerns of aid in the termination ten years has been the politicization and secularization of the aid industry. everyplace the last twenty five years humanitarian aid has move around heavily institutionalized. This has led to more effective logistics and delivery remainss. However it has withal created institutions that are perhaps non so concerned with providing aid to those in need, but acting in the interests of governments or big businesses that are the donors of the resources. improver organizations such as nongovernmental organizations and now foreign armed services forces are practically in competition with local organizations which has led to invaluable resources being wasted because of constant competition for aid . 5Because of this, NGOs neutrality (one of the most fundamental principles of humanitarian aid) is severely compromised because the boundaries between suspension and development, war and peace and political objectives are not easily defined.Thus, NGOs in these most recent years have struggled to adhere to the basic humanitarian principles of providing to those most in need because their ideals are compromised by the secularization and politicization of aid organizations. 6 Perhaps one of the most fundamental problems of humanitarian aid in the 21st century is the fact that it is often no longer carried out by NGOs, but is in fact coordinated by foreign military forces. In cases such as Iraq and Afghanistan the fall in States military assumed a huge role for the distribution of disaster and humanitarian assistance alongside their military objectives.If foreign militaries are carrying out humanitarian aid alongside military objectives, past in that location is no way that aid can be supplied to whoever is in need in ways that are impartial, neutral and independent. This new system whereby foreign militaries are responsible for supplying aid has created huge credentials problems for not only the military, but for the deal who are receiving aid. Opposing factions to foreign military time and time again in Afghanistan and Iraq have targeted civilians receiving aid to barely their own agenda. These are the problems that exist in the humanitarian aid industry today, but these problems have developed over a business of many years and responses to famine and humanitarian disasters have evolved over time. thirty years ago disaster relief and humanitarian aid were not considered to be of huge significance on a geopolitical scale. During the 70s and 80s although humanitarian crisis existed, the geopolitics was more focused on the cold war and respecting the sovereignty of nation states.Although crisis in Africa, East Pakistan and Guatemala (to figure a few) were made aware to the international community , they were sidelined by the sincere political concerns defined by the cold war. Throughout the 1970s, 1980s and even th e 1990s international opinion and more importantly international law, see the fact that governments, even of highly prone man-made and natural disasters had the responsibility, will, interest and ability to protect their own citizens.Any humanitarian aid that was given in these years was seen as assistance to these governments to look after their own citizens. essentially 25 years ago, the concept of humanitarian intervention without the concurrence of the moved(p) state would not have been considered and certainly would not have been authorise by the joined Nations or the international Community. 8 Since the 1980s humanitarian aid and responses to famine have changed not only in thought, but institutionally.In the mid 1980s there were approximately 280 governmental, intergovernmental and non-governmental aid organizations. Today that go is over 1000. As well as this huge expansion of organizations there has been a dramatic increase in aid expenditure. In the last two decades humanitarian assistance has tripled from approximately two billion to hexad billion dollars. 9 Because of this huge increase in the funding of aid the competition between organizations can some times have disastrous consequences because the organizations are competing for finite resources.This is increased by for profit organizations that are competing for lucrative humanitarian and development contracts. Many donors of aid motives are not for the needs of the people that are in need of these resources but are aligned with domestic considerations or international interests that are a world apart from the ad hoc needs of those people affected by disaster or emergency. 10 The famine of normality Korea in 1998 is a perfect example of conditional humanitarian aid, and how it is driven not by humanitarian principle, but a clever tool for geopolitical gains.The North Korean famine shows how humanitarian aid today has changed to become an important political tool in contrast to two dec ades ago whereby any humanitarian crisis was sidelined because of the geopolitical linguistic context of the cold war. 9 In times of famine it is important to accentuate that the likelihood of a famishment nation to accept emergency aid under any condition means that conditional aid can be seen as a political tool to establish a diplomatic, political or even military presence under the cloak of humanitarian aid. 11 This was such the case in the North Korean famine.From 1995-1998 North Korea was hit by a series of national disasters that resulted in a large scale famine. Rough estimates say that by 1998 North Korea lacked about two million tones of grain needed to feed its people. fit to the world food program the rate of moderate to severe malnutrition of children in North Korea was about sixty per cent by mid 1998. 12 By mid 1998 the United States and South Korea realized that it could use the famine in North Korea as a political tool to while away the isolated North and offer aid on terms that benefited themselves.The United States and South Korea offered food aid on terms that North Korea had to engrave into reunification and peace talks and not break out of the 1994 hold framework designed to end the Norths nuclear program. If the North refused to adhere to these conditions, no food aid would be given. Another condition was that the shipments of aid would be covered with stickers and logos from the United States and South Korea. Although this may seem insignificant it was a huge propaganda tool for the donor powers.It could see as an undermining of the North Korean regime that had told its people for decades that the South and the United States were undermining their nation. 13 The slow response to give aid put the US and South Korea in a strategically advantageous situation to further its political goals. If North Korea didnt accept United States conditions the famine would bear on and the possibility of an internal break down of the state incre ased. If the North certain the terms on which the donors offered, the aid functioned as an important political tool.It meant North Korea had to give concessions and that the people of North Korea could see the failure of its regime and the beneficence of the western powers that they had been told for so long were there enemies. Thus, humanitarian aid was not offered to support those people starving, but was rather used as a political tool to further the donor states own political agendas under the guise of humanitarian aid. In actual fact, the aid was so far removed from what humanitarian aid in its purest sense really was. 4 So much was this aid seen as a political tool that in 1998 the South Korean government banned non governmental groups from fundraising to support those starving in the North. 15 This is undeniable proof that political aims were the implicit in(p) focus of the conditional aid rather than aid to help the starving North Korean population that was stricken by fa mine. The key challenges to famine prevention today are huge and include a junto of factors that are not easily unchanged.First of all, humanitarian aid is now such a lucrative industry that competition for contracts means that organizations are in constant competition for finite resources, the resources that are needed in times when famine strikes. Secondly, as long as foreign militaries carry out some humanitarian aid then the adherence to neutrality and impartiality that is so fundamental to the aid process is essentially undermined. Military goals will always be aligned alongside objectives that are not ineluctably aligned with those of starving people.And finally, as long as conditional aid is used as a political tool, then humanitarian aid faces huge challenges. In a time when people need aid, if governments are focused on geopolitical goals and furthering their own agendas rather than helping those in times of famine then humanitarian aid is essentially a guise and is merel y a political tool for donor governments to use to further their own agendas. 1 Robinson, J. (2003) Postcolonising geography tactics and pitfalls Singapore diary of Tropical Geography p273 2 When does aid conditionally work?Gabriella R Montinola. Studies in comparative international development, vol 45, 2010, pp 358-362 3 ibid (same ref as above) 4 International gentle Crisis two decades before and two decades beyond. Randolf C Kent. International Affairs rule book 80, issie 5, 2004 p 851-870 5 Aaltola, M. Responding to emergencies and fostering development the dilemmas of humanitarian aid trine world planning review. Liverpool University Press. 0142-7849 Vol. 22(1), 2000, p. 111-112 6 International merciful Crisis two decades before and two decades beyond. Randolf C Kent.International Affairs Volume 80, issie 5, 2004 pp 851-870 7International Human Crisis two decades before and two decades beyond. Randolf C Kent. International Affairs Volume 80, issie 5, 2004 851-870 8 Resh aping humanitarian assistance in the twenty first century. Tim ODempsey and Barry Munslow. Progress in Development Studies 2009 91 pp 1-2 9 Randolf C Kent. Pp 851-870 10 Aaltola, M. Responding to emergencies and fostering development the dilemmas of humanitarian aid Third world planning review. Liverpool University Press. 0142-7849 Vol. 22(1), 2000, p. 111-112 11. G.M Guess. The Politics of United States Foreign Aid, London Croom Helm, 1987, p3 12 Lischer, Sarah Kenyon. austere SanctuariesRefugee Camps, Civil War, And the Dilemmas of Humanitarian Aid. Cornwell University Press. 2006. Pp 3-9 13 Emergency Food Aid as a instrument of Political Persuasion in the North Korean Famine Mika Aaltola Third World Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Apr. , 1999), p 374 14 Emergency Food Aid as a Means of Political Persuasion in the North Korean Famine Mika Aaltola Third World Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Apr. , 1999), pp 372- 386 15 Korean Herald, 13 May, 1997