Report | Chourouk Mestour
This report provides a review and analysis of the paper titled “Principled Humanitarian Action & Ethical Tensions in Multi-Mandate Organizations in Armed Conflict: Observations from a Rapid Literature Review” by Dr. Hugo Slim and Miriam Bradley, published by World Vision in March 2013.
The paper was developed as part of World Vision’s broader research initiative on humanitarian ethics, conducted in collaboration with the Institute of Ethics, Law, and Armed Conflict at the University of Oxford. This research focuses on the use of multi-mandate agencies as a strategic approach during armed conflicts and related crises. These agencies are employed to perform a range of issues and manage multiple crises that occur simultaneously in a given region.
The paper explores particular ethical tensions that multi-mandate agencies encounter while operating in conflict zones. It is structured into several key sections, each addressing different aspects of the ethical challenges faced by these organizations.
The first section addresses Humanitarian Ethics and Development Ethics, highlighting the tension between a care-focused mandate and a change-focused mandate, “two cultures”, Emergency response teams tend to prioritize speed, urgency, and meeting immediate needs, while development staff focus more on long-term goals, processes, and sustainability. These differing mindsets and priorities can lead to frictions and disputes within the organization.
The new concept of resilience presents the answer through integrating humanitarian and improvement values right into a unified moral goal. The resilience approach ambitions to broaden individuals, families, communities, cities, systems, and states which could resist shocks and disasters. This new method to aid particularly integrates humanitarian and development features and requires multi-mandate investment and practice.
The second section examines Political Liberalism as Development Ethics, exploring, the tensions arise in two main ways: conflicts with liberal donors over the means of development, and conflicts with anti-liberal parties over both ends and means. Accepting funding from liberal governments can lead to ethical issues if agencies disagree with how those governments pursue liberal development. Problems often involve concerns about association or complicity in liberal projects. Additionally, ethical issues emerge when development operations clash with anti-liberal forces, affecting staff safety, access, and values.
This section of the paper discusses how liberalism itself is being challenged in various conflicts and is still understood as a form of Western imperialism by Islamic states, socialist states, various armed groups, or states wary of Western hegemony.
The third section about: Framing War as a (Liberal) Development Problem, International aid policy consistently implies that states have armed conflicts because they are not liberal enough.
A developmental approach to natural disaster and famine has existed for more than 30 years and insists on a political approach to disaster mitigation and prevention that prioritizes multi-mandate approaches, in the same way donor policy has taken a political, multi-mandate, multi-sectoral and developmental approach to the problem of armed conflict.
The real challenge discussed at this point is that armed conflict is not just a transient event but can be part of a broader process related to economic and social development, where different parties vie for resources, resist marginalization, or compete against Western liberalism.
Western aid is described as a means to achieve global liberal interests, serving as a political tool to advance Western goals in the world, such as ensuring developmental outcomes aligned with their values and interests.
To what extent can NGOs distance themselves from liberal donor governments, especially when these governments are parties to the wars in which the NGOs are playing a humanitarian role?
The fourth section argue about the line between Relief and development that they may seem like distinct tasks, but in reality, protracted crises bring them closer together in a logical and ethical manner. The duration of the crisis deepens and expands the ethical responsibility to merge both ‘fields’ in such a way that their ethics and techniques gradually overlap.
Although merging humanitarian and development ethics may be logical, ethical, and advantageous, it also poses a political risk because it can appear as a clear breach of humanitarian neutrality. For warring parties, agencies may seem to be getting closer to strategic communities or enemy populations and doing more for them, which can be perceived as taking sides or conferring military or economic advantage.
The fifth section focuses on Neutrality as an Ethical Tension: Most tensions in multi-mandates are reported in armed conflict, these tensions hinge around neutrality and political co-option of humanitarian and development by warring parties. This becomes more acute when multi-mandate agencies and warring parties share certain liberal political ethics.
Assistance can support civilians but cannot enhance the capabilities of the warring parties. Often, development in conflicts is biased towards governments and operates through state structures. Balancing neutrality and impartiality is difficult, as warring parties seek to leverage aid for their own benefit. For example, aid passing through NATO-controlled areas in Afghanistan is considered legitimate, whereas aid passing through the Taliban is deemed illegitimate. A similar issue arose in Somalia, where neither side accepted that aid could be applied impartially, leading to restrictions on food aid and catastrophic results.
Moving on to the most significant aspect of this paper: The Agency Policy, there is a relative lack of explicit reference in the literature to these previously mentioned tensions, and how agencies deal with them, or to the process of task integration that takes place. However, there is an example of the organization “Save the Children” which explicitly explains the reasons for the existence of a dual humanitarian-development mandate, just as the organization “Oxfam” is explicitly concerned with human rights, poverty and inequality in power relations and justice, and is committed to an integrated approach to humanitarian work, campaigns, and long-term development.
The reason behind humanitarian agencies adopting this policy of multiple mandates is that these mandates can enhance their ability to respond to people’s needs in crises. However, there is always a debate about the extent to which humanitarian and development assistance align in all contexts. Some argue that the political manipulation of development interventions during the war on terror calls for humanitarian purity, while others believe that single-agency approaches will increase bureaucratic efficiency.
The paper also discussed a comparison between the ethical tensions faced by multiple-mandate agencies, and other professions such as politics, human rights, and public health. And how these fields also deal with conflicting objectives and values as well. Politics, for example, deals with a diverse set of conflicting values, such as freedom and justice, making it a multiple-mandate profession that requires a constant balancing of different goals.
Ethical tensions in mixed humanitarian and development mandates are longstanding and prevalent, especially as multi-mandate agencies constitute the majority of aid organizations in armed conflicts. These tensions are intensified by the dominance of expansionist political liberalism, which often contributes to conflicts, including those between liberal and Islamist viewpoints. This dynamic mirrors the ideological struggles of the Cold War, suggesting that liberal development mandates can exacerbate conflicts. Additionally, traditional issues of neutrality, prolonged engagements, and the balance between relief and development further complicate humanitarian efforts.
In fact, discussing a multi-dimensional policy is both necessary and highly beneficial at present. The nature of conflicts and disputes faced by the international community has evolved significantly. The sources of threats and the concept of security have expanded, and various stakeholders exploit periods of chaos and war to achieve their objectives, often disregarding essential humanitarian needs.
Given the current world of multiple international poles and non-state actors, and the presence of unpredictable and hard-to-define threats, a comprehensive and multi-faceted strategy is optimal. The long-standing debate between development and security should now focus on integrating humanitarian, immediate, and developmental efforts into a unified approach.
Addressing complex and interconnected issues and conflicts cannot be resolved with simplistic, one-dimensional solutions. It requires a holistic approach. This is one of the key reasons why the security sector has expanded to include environmental, community, military, political, and economic security, as all these sectors are interconnected.
However, there are several points that present challenges and need attention. Among these is the importance of humanitarian ethics as a neutral approach, which contrasts with the negative reputation of liberal principles in conflict zones. The focus in international conflicts should be on achieving international security and peace, and implementing inclusive projects that do not exclude any part of the community based on cultural or ethnic affiliations. The negative perception of liberalism has contributed to polarization, leading to the involvement of other international actors in conflict zones, such as China and Russia. These countries do not impose policies with slogans advocating for radical changes in societies and local environments.
This idea is closely related to the dilemma of neutrality, which is the difficulty that Western actors face in dealing with models that diverge from the Western liberal framework. This might lead them to favor parties that seem closer to their cultural values or more open to integrating into the liberal model. However, does this necessarily mean that the alternative models are wrong? They might actually be quite suitable for the community and the local environment.
In conclusion, conflict zones are primarily characterized by significant chaos and the involvement of multiple parties, which complicates the work of humanitarian agencies. The presence of various entities with differing tools and objectives operating within the same area—regardless of their affiliation with the United Nations—further adds to the complexity of the situation. Consequently, addressing crises within humanitarian agencies becomes increasingly challenging, especially when these crises are compounded by deeper and more violent issues.
Chourouk Mestour