Just finished Philip Gourevitch’s “Alms Dealer,” in October’s The New Yorker. One part review of Linda Polman’s “The Crisis Caravan: What’s Wrong with Humanitarian Aid?”, it’s a very powerful and thought provoking article its own right. The article was posted to my Facebook wall by Lindsay Toler, one of the brightest fellow volunteers I have the pleasure to serve with here in Moldova (and a healthy, which clearly speaks to her good character). I’ve been thinking a lot lately about international aid – its ethics, its effectiveness, and its unintended consequences. Until now, my thoughts have been mostly focused on development aid, so this article struck a chord and made me think about development’s humanitarian cousin. What follows are some unorganized thoughts that originally began as a FB comment but grew too long for that medium. Not the update friends and family back home were probably hoping for, but it’s the one that got written. Preemptive forgiveness given if you decide to skip it.
The article starts on the familiar terrain of the greed v. grievance debate within conflict studies. The whole argument is premised heavily on the greed side of this debate, within the academic camp of liberal rationality. In short, people are rational, including warlords.
The initial problem then that this article forces is that constructivist bane of all rationalist attempts to remake the world into a better place (realism and liberalism alike): rules are not stable, and as soon as the rules of the game are known, rational actors adjust to manipulate the rules in their favor. The result is a constantly shifting arms race of changing rules. Unfortunately, as the tomes of failed humanitarian interventions show, the “bad guys” seem to figure out how to work the old rules in their favor much quicker than the “good guys” can come with new rules to prevent them from doing so.
Very quickly, however, the article leaves behind technical questions of why intervention might fuel conflict, and goes for the moral jugular of humanitarianism, whether there can truly be any neutral or unambiguously good intervention. The single most prescient sentence: "The scenes of suffering that we tend to call humanitarian crises are almost always symptoms of political circumstances, and there’s no apolitical way of responding to them—no way to act without having a political effect."