# data[].attributes.body
I loved reading this- Fassin's style is so engaging whilst also being very detailed. He discusses in detail the different ways in which humanitarian organisations justify and perceive their actions, using the example of MSF's involvement in Iraq in 2003 to demonstrate the diverging values of efficacy and altruism that the organisation had to weigh up.
I was enthralled by Fassin's depiction of different politics of life and hierarchies of life in humanitarianism. His conclusion that 'life is no longer, as it was before, biological; it is henceforth biographical', and that this constitutes a new inequality, is fascinating. I also appreciated his discussion about the Western military's politics of life, one in which an acceptance of civilians' 'collateral damage' co-exists with a 'zero death' policy for soldiers.
DORA

# data[].attributes.body
Fassin’s article draws attention to the inherent contradictions within the humanitarian sphere through the use of distinctions and dichotomies within the discourse. These dualisms seem to conflict with the principles of neutrality and impartiality that are central to humanitarian actions, because human life is weighed up and evaluated, and by those with the authority to do so. Politics and humanitarianism are shown to be inextricably linked by this inherent inequality, e.g. between the expats and the nationals; subjects and objects; the ‘populations’ who await the disaster; and the ‘citizens of the world’ who render them assistance. Agency is taken away from these populations and aid is offered sometimes without input from the 'victims' i.e. the idea of the biographical life (the life that is lived but that others narrate). This seems to link to elements of the discourse of development and the power dynamics within that, in terms of universal values being applied.
It makes me wonder how these ethical decisions and supposedly impartial judgements about human life can be made in such a politicised space, that is full of contradictions and differing interests. Especially as the space is now becoming increasingly corrupted by disaster capitalism.
Izzi

Response to Izzi:
I also found the discussion of the relationship of humanitarianism to politics interesting, and agree that they are inextricably linked as is shown by Fassin's demonstration of this radical inequality of lives.
The 'question' you pose at the end made me think. I think it's interesting that it contains an implication that ethical judgements can, and should be, 'objective' and apolitical. I would argue that all such judgements are in fact founded on culturally constructed conceptions of morality, and, in the context of humanitarianism, can only be political. Humanitarian decisions will always involve choices regarding who to save, how to do it, whether or not one should stay or withdraw, etc; I think its involvement in a politics of life is inevitable. Even the idea of 'being on the side of the victims' is political, since their victimisation is political. It feels like humanitarianism's ideals of neutrality, impartiality, etc. only hides that fact, and presents interventions that are very much founded on culture-specific and politically charged values as objective and unquestionable, as well as exonerating itself from the responsibility of a conscious and clearly formulated political position, and of the political consequences of its actions.
- Mounia

Response to Izzy and Mounia
I also really enjoyed the reading and the explanation of Weberian power.The political/moral debate certainly seems to substantiate the contemporary landscape of humanitarianism. The explanation of lives valued, and the hierarchy existing within humanitarian sectors, which is reproduced by action is incredibly insightful.
Kitty

# data[].attributes.body
I feel a distinction  between material needs and social needs should be noticed. We should primarily to know how material aids meet the needs of refugees, and then, how those social constructed meanings attached on materials are impacting on refugees' social encounters. Thinking through materials, those aid materials are produced in certain technological areas, then carried through institutions (e.g. NGOs), monitored by authorities, handed by practitioners, and used by displaced people. The socially constructed meanings, value, discourse are power are concretely impacting on refugees' life, just as materials (medicines, food, transport) concretely work into their bodily sensitivities. This probably is another way for approaching the issues of humanitarianism aids.

Bo Yang

# data[].attributes.body
While I do agree with this article’s premise in terms of where humanitarians should shift their focus, I cannot help but feel that it oversimplifies the process humanitarians would have to undertake in order to enable freedom of movement for displaced populations. As we can see from mandates such as the Safe Third Country Agreement, governments have little to no interest in allowing displaced people to determine where they feel safest or most protected. With the current prioritizing of conservative aims in Western states, not only is it not in their political interest, but also not in their economic interest to allow freedom of movement, as Klein highlights in “The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.” The total reconstruction of volatile states, as well as the conditioning of aid, relies on the containment and concentration of people, in order to make room for the World Bank’s objectives. It would take complicated, extensive (and expensive) lobbying efforts, and definitely more than advocacy initiatives, to influence governments to change their market-oriented policies to one that focuses on empowerment. - Mahali

# data[].attributes.body
The first part of the book brings out a strong point of motive vs outcome and I think there is no easy way about this. Sometimes good intentions are considered enough even when there is little to no outcomes, and it is easily passed as a learning point. Especially in rural communities, where outcomes are hardly ever mentioned, good intentions is all the proof for help rendered.
Sarah Kazira

# data[].attributes.body
The first few pages of the book (1-48) bring out how power, politics and ethics entangle and influence humanitarian motives and actions of the 'West/Developed' towards the so called 'third world/global south'. Another important narrative/discourse/factor that importantly and positively influences humanitarian acts is also religion. While religion could be a factor utilised to spread discord, within the Global South, for example in India, especially since the time of Independence (1947) and even before religious institutes have also been the key humanitarians, Sikhs through Gurudwaras are the first to provide food and relief anytime any disaster strikes in the nation; Christians are known to lay foundation and even participate in the educational institutes; Muslims as part of their belief of 'zakat' donate a certain percentage of their wealth' each year;  Hindus/Jains/Buddhist believe in the concept of Bhiksha to donate to those less fortunate or religious mendicants; irrespective of personal economic conditions. When all the above occur in the same locality  (eg. Bandra, Mumbai) it forms a beautiful secular narrative of local humanitarianism and development for, of and by the people themselves. Even if in current times it appears as an oxymoron to the political narrative.                                   -Priyanka

# data[].attributes.body
Whilst there are obvious differences in the implications of seeking refuge across the border, and being internally displaced, I can't help but feel that the differences in protection laws for Refugees and IDPs under UN conventions and rules represents yet another way in which words/language -  specifically terms used in a world dominated by the global north - can create unfair realities for those in the global south, as IDPs are evidently not going to be protected to the same extent by the unstable governments of their 'home' countries.
-Bea

# data[].attributes.body
I found this chapter very thought-provoking. Specifically, as it presents the notion of the “ideal” humanitarian act which should be driven by altruism – to save lives with nothing in return. This chapter shows how religious beliefs are linked to a humanitarian ethic. The “ideal” humanitarian act is associated with the parable of the Good Samaritan. Especially during colonial rule, where humanitarian acts performed by missionaries acted as religious arms of colonial powers helping to “civilise” states. The hierarchical notion of “civilising” and humanitarian work made me link about the idea of the white saviour. More specifically, I remember watching a fundraising film made by Stacey Dooley for UK charity Comic Relief in Uganda. The film showed Dooley holding a young Ugandan boy which to me evoked "colonial thoughts" of a white heroine saving the day. It was interesting and exciting to me to read recently that this year Comic Relief have decided to stop using celebrities and give voices to the people who live in Africa to help fundraise. Such ideas are present in the #nowhitesaviours movement present on social media – I have attached a link to a short video which introduces the women behind the campaign.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-africa-47587185
-Rebecca

Response to Rebecca:
Yes! I also see the parallelism (and loved the # and the video, thank you for sharing). In general, with all the readings we are doing, I get more and more the feeling that we should stop talking about colonialism in past terms. It is still very much alive -if anything, more subtle and sophisticated. In the name of development and humanitarianism, Western countries are still using the rest of the world for their benefit while imposing their own ways of living/thinking. What would it take to end colonialism? How can colonized/aided countries take more agency and space? How can we redefine humanitarianism in a way that is non invasive or whitesaving?
Laura Torres
Response to Rebecca
I agree, the ideal form of humanitarianism was altruism, but sadly that is no longer common and humanitarianism has become a profession.
Response by Sarah Kazira

# data[].attributes.body
Naomi Klein’s coined term “disaster capitalism” added to my understanding on the rhetoric of globalization being the key to development. Organisations like the World Bank and IMF justify these interventions post disaster - of privatisation, clearing local spaces for tourism, and enforcing neoliberal conditions - through the idea that it will help the country enter the global economy, and that through heightened interconnectivity they will prosper. It shows a clear example of the blurring of lines between development and humanitarianism, where humanitarianism is used as a way to exert western notions of development on disaster struck countries. A notion of development that only heightens the connectivity between national elites, leaving the local people to suffer (as we can see from the tearing down of coastal housing to make space for tourists etc.).

I also think it’s interesting to explore how certain reforms are kept in place through Foucault’s notion of governmentality and how leaders are expected to fulfil the condition of ‘good governance’.
-Emma

Responding to Emma
This was a brilliant and clear article, if wholly depressing. The main issue that struck me was not just the links between capitalist, post-colonial governments and reconstruction businesses, it was the fact that the USA government has a department dedicated to disasters which have not yet happened. Rather than focussing on stabilising and supporting government whose infrastructures and systems show signs of stress, the department has a comprehensive “post-conflict plan” for countries not yet in conflict.

As per the examples given in Iraq, Afghanistan and Haiti, once a disaster has occurred, there is no partnership or equality between the ruling government and the aid agencies. Although I wasn’t really aware of what was happening between the agencies and governments when I visited Sri Lanka in 2005, there were plenty of stories and rumours about disjointed and inappropriate aid. In one case, one village had received new fishing boats and another village had been given fishing nets. Neither had the means to rebuild or support themselves but were considered to have been given aid.

It’s difficult to propose an alternative to this current structure when major institutions like the World Bank are involved but slightly uplifting that local organisations in Sri Lanka and Thailand were speaking out. Fassin’s call for “humanitarian reason” where the moral and political combine would appear to be the way forward.

Susie

# data[].attributes.body
This article summarizes the opportunism and neo-imperialistic seizures of control by private companies and the world bank after disasters. By using an illusion of humanitarianism they justify what they call 'rebuilding', but what is in fact 'tearing apart'. By privatising public sectors, expanding the tourism industry and industrial farming they effecting 'wipe clean' disaster struck areas of culture. The question it provoked for me was:
How can humanitarian aid reclaim its key concepts of neutrality, impartiality and relief?

The distinction between development and humanitarianism needs to become clear again.

An impassioned Elliot

To Elliot
I completely agree. There's sort of nothing to critique about the article itself. I really just want to express some disgust at what, as you say, is neo-imperialism in plain sight. I'd really like to know if any part of this has changed since 2005, when Klein wrote the article - perhaps just wishful thinking!

A disheartened Bea

Response to Elliot and Bea:
I share your sentiments and sadly, having worked with the Red Cross from 2013-2017, from my experience I can say that not much has changed. Take Haiti in 2010, after the earthquake, there was a NPR report that investigated where the $500M donation money was spent (https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief?t=1604515501523). However, in spite of the fact that reconfiguring the humanitarian (and development) system seems like an insurmountable challenge, these are the very questions and critiques that we have to keep raising if anything is to change.

A (still trying to be) hopeful Sheu Jeen

Response by (a confused) Moustafa:
Even the language within INGOs is problematic, when for example, a project/program spending is called "burn rate" (although I am not really sure how it is addressed in bilateral/multilateral agencies. Even when the private sector is involved in most projects, at best they are reducing their taxes by increasing 'expenditure' that is directed to aid, at worst, they have a material agenda that has material gains. It also reminded me of the first book I read on development by Bolton Aid and Other Dirty Business, which provides an insider's account of the aid system (although it was not particularly good)

Response from Maria:

I completely agree that there seems to be a difference between the original intent behind humanitarian aid and the disaster capitalism Klein describes. However, I wonder if we might not be presenting humanitarian aid itself in an overly positive way in light of this contrast. Can humanitarian aid ever truly be a neutral thing? Considered in, for example, Escobar's terms, is it not just another discourse? Maybe a useful difference can be drawn between natural disaster relief and man-made disaster relief in terms of neutrality, although I fear that these two are also more interlinked than we may wish.

# data[].attributes.headline
Capitalism spares no one, least of all disaster victims

# data[].attributes.subject
Capitalism spares no one, least of all disaster victims

# data[].attributes.body
The term disaster capitalism is indeed a very powerful term – stirring up images of big corporates “making hay when the sun shines” except that there is really no sunshine. Klein’s narrative which she backs up with rather ugly statistics are quite a shame, and here I would use Barnett and Weiss’s notion of “consequential ethics” to argue that such reconstruction efforts can hardly be termed as humanitarianism. However, I recognize the simplicity of this argument and therefore ask what are the possible ways for us to understand harm that humanitarian efforts may produce? Is this a good discussion to have?
-Anu

Response to Anu by Sheu Jeen:
That's a really good question Anu, and something that humanitarians themselves seldom ask. Perhaps a good place to start would be by asking the "beneficiaries" themselves (which by the way, we should be using more equal and empowering terms like "affected communities" or "community partners"). The ones on the receiving end of aid would be best positioned to tell humanitarians about the benefits or disadvantages of assistance provided. There's an amazing book called Time To Listen, that although is a scary 184 pages long, just scrolling through and reading the quotes from people is enough to make us aware that humanitarian aid often does more harm than good. (https://www.cdacollaborative.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Time-to-Listen-Hearing-People-on-the-Receiving-End-of-International-Aid.pdf)

Response by Flora LH
I completely agree with you both, this idea that humanitarianism can ever call itself "neutral" seems laughable in the presence of such damning works such as Klein's. The example you mention, Sheu Jeen, of a pre-disater department complete with pre-conflict grants and cookie cutter privatisation plans is especially expressive of this irony. Its strange to me that humanitarian aid is so strongly tied to this "neutrality" claim when it is so clearly anything but.

Humanitarianism and aid never seem to be held to the same standards of other international "interference" (war, international investment, labour outsourcing etc) simply because of its careful facade of "doing good". This is apparently enough to obscure the reality of a new colonialism masked in white-saviour morality all over again. The quote from Shalmali Guttal, put it so perfectly, “We used to have vulgar colonialism...“Now we have sophisticated colonialism, and they call it ‘reconstruction.'”

If planning to (or even just pretending to) "do good" is enough to absolve international efforts of any responsibility to follow through, then masking capitalism and extortion with do-gooding is a very clever rebranding of the colonial civilisation and saviourship that still works today. I cant help thinking that the shallow "at least they're trying to help" would be best replaced with "good intentions do not outweigh harmful outcomes".
Flora.

The idea of 'disaster capitalism' is so fascinating, and depressingly effective at explaining the way 'humanitarianism' functions. Its openly neo-liberal, colonial qualities is similar to lots of other ways cooperations and businesses use kinds of social causes as a front for profit development. For example, companies that run yearly campaigns for International Women's Day or Black History Month, that do not actually do anything to promote Women's rights or improve Black people's  experience of their workplace. The quote from Condoleeza Rice describing a tsunami as a 'wonderful opportunity' sums this up - humanitarian disaster is just another chance to create profit with a social cause as its face
-Lucy HB

# data[].attributes.body
Barnett and Weiss highlighted the role allocation of the social and relational identities of those offering support in natural and manmade disaster, reflecting of a notion of uniformity shared by these actors. They suggested that this identity is “…generated by actors’ interaction with and relations to others” (p.5).

However, despite questions have been raised whether humanitarianism is doing more good or harm, as mentioned in the lecture, it does not illustrate the potential impact of presenting people as statistics, and the impacts of the "victim" label as opposed to the "saviour" within the discussed role allocation. Could this label further impose disadvantages as a collective? For example, could reducing identities to the role of “victim” have an impact on why some European countries e.g. Hungary perceived refugees fleeing from war and conflict as “burden” rather than a potential answer to the labour shortages faced by the country.

- Veronika

Response to Veronika:

I absolutely agree with what you say. I think that labelling people in this way or seeing victims simply as statistics really risks reifying devised categories that can be used to subjugate.

Claudia

# data[].attributes.body
Fassin’s piece partly explores what Barnett and Weiss refer to as the second of two defining trends of post-Cold War humanitarianism: the mounting dangers that complex crises pose humanitarianism. No longer is the “moral necessity” of humanitarian action very clear, and as such, humanitarianism has arguably descended into a “new dark age.” Fassin fleshes this out by examining MSF’s role in Iraq; although many expatriates/NGO workers withdrew in the lead up to the invasion, a team of three health professionals from MSF decided to stay. Fassin questions how this decision was justified. How useful could a team of 3 really be? How well prepared were they? Although they initially remain in Iraq, following an abduction of two team members, the situation is deemed unsafe and they flee. This highlights the hypocrisy in virtue signalling a “virtue ethics” (i.e. the MSF president suggesting that staying in a conflict zone will always cost lives, which implies his/their own too, not just the lives of casualties/national workers) and, as Fassin points out, also highlights ‘the contradictions inherent in a declared politics of risking lives that [do] not hold up in the face of real danger.’ One the one hand, I can sympathise with the cause of people who are trying to help, but it seems that desire to help is often misplaced; a more constructive self-reflexivity is critical moving forward.

- Ayesha

# data[].attributes.headline
A "dialectic between lives to be saved and lives to be risked"

# data[].attributes.subject
A "dialectic between lives to be saved and lives to be risked"

# data[].attributes.body
Fassin's writing is always engaging and engages with philosophical concepts in a very accessible way. His discussion of lives risked and lives saved in terms of MSF's "missions" in both Iraq and Rwanda bring to mind the way that language in international organisations seems to be reiterating difference over and again. The weighing up of risk to persons which he terms "the humanitarian politics of life" is a difficult conversation to have for NGO's and international organisation arhat re claiming so viciously that they. do. good.

The example of the language used to distinguish international "expatriates" from local "nationals" seems to justify the differences in their roles, wages, healthcare etc. National are "only" locals, they will accept less, need less care, whereas "expats", like their UN cousins, get danger m one for their troubles, access to expensive French healthcare and luxury accommodation. Even the casual use of "mission" grates with me, and humanitarians in general (and MSF in particular) take on a pith-helmeted-white-linen-suit-"bringing god-to-the savages" sheen of colonial complicity with its ease  using such a loaded term.

Why can humanitarian claim neutrality and morality and yet make these blatant linguistic distinctions at the most basic organisational and salary levels that only barely obfuscate its neo-colonial shadow work?

Flora LH

# data[].attributes.headline
Maintaining principles of humanitarianism vs Politics 

# data[].attributes.subject
Maintaining principles of humanitarianism vs Politics 

# data[].attributes.body
On a side note I know Anthropology has aspired to be value free, so trying to remain neutral, impartial and maintain objectivity. This is similar to the key fundamental values that humanitarianism is based on: impartiality; neutrality and independence. This means not getting involved in politics, as their main role and concern should focus on alleviating relief and not challenging systems and political structures that cause this suffering. The reading does discuss why humanitarianism aims to depoliticise their role/position which is to protect their safety and the safety of people affecting by conflict because it is their job to keep people alive. In my opinion, in some situations it may seem like the best course of action in volatile situations and conflict, where it may be counterproductive for humanitarian agencies to be involved in politics if this means more harm than good is cause, which further jeopardises the lives of the vulnerable. However, it then raises further questions like how much can it really change if it does not challenge the political structures and systems that continue to violate the lives of others? Although, interestingly, the reading does discuss how humanitarianism is not as apolitical as it makes itself out to be; many are drawn to this realm because being involved in humanitarianism is a political statement. Nevertheless, it is impossible, irrespective of the intention to make a political statement or not, because their actions do have real political outcome despite aiming for impartiality and neutrality. This is why humanitarian agencies and actors need to be aware of the impact that their involvement has in particular situations/conflicts.

+Phoebe

REPLY to Phoebe:
I am interested in what you say here about the similarities between the values of humanitarianism and anthropology. I think you are definitely right, and both seem to claim to be 'neutral', whilst also often making political statements by virtue of the sort of people they choose to involve themselves with. There is a strand within anthropology that would argue that the job of the anthropologist is not to be neutral but to advocate for the oppressed and marginalised. I believe there are similar arguments within humanitarian discourse, as we saw from this piece.
What this brings up for me is the question 'What do we mean by political?', a question which I don't think this chapter adequately addresses (although perhaps elsewhere in the book this question is tackled.) For instance, the authors give the example of MSF and how they cannot be seen as apolitical, because they adopt a deliberately active attitude. They point out that, at the time of writing, MSF are engaging in a high-profile campaign to provide "access to medicines" to the global poor, which could be seen as political as it is challenging the power of big-pharma. However, to me, being apolitical could also mean working to ensure balance and fairness- which, in my eyes, is not respected by pharmaceutical companies charging money for life-saving drugs. In this way, MSF could still be seen as apolitical. in fact, in NOT working for universal access to medicines, could they be seen to be complicit in a particular political ideology of neoliberalism?
Basically, I found this concept of what is political and what is not really interesting. I would like to read the rest of the book to see how the authors tackle this subject.
DORA

# data[].attributes.body
This article provided an informative overview on how disaster capitalism is the new form of colonialism.  Where humanitarian assistance was meant to provide relief, it has now become a big business. Power dynamics are still visible in the reconstruction sector where government of poorer countries ( which are the standard for deconstruction) are forced to make deals, get loans and agree to policies they otherwise would not have agreed to under normal circumstances, all in the promise of help.
Sarah Kazira

Response by Priyanka

I agree with the point Sarah makes on Power Dynamics and how governments of lower income countries have to comply with policies and make deals they would other wise not have made. This in-fact may make the local governments vary of International Orgs as the help sometimes comes across as an enforcement rather than benefit. However due to financial needs the deals are made, but this then hampers intentions of the local government on implementing the project. As their focus is to meet the outcomes expected by the International Orgs at any cost especially in the time constraints given, no matter the difficulty faced by the beneficiaries on ground. Or it completely reduces their motivation to utilise the funds from the International Orgs as they would rather settle for domestic or help that comes with terms more reasonable to them.

Response by Ayesha:
I agree with the above. What I have also found interesting is how disaster capitalism is not only colonial/practised by richer countries profiteering and reengineering the economies and infrastructure of poorer countries but also takes place within the richer countries themselves (like in New Orleans, also Thatcherism). I have found Klein’s framework so useful in understanding how crises everywhere are frequently exploited for private, capitalistic gain. I think corona virus (e.g. Serco and test-and-trace) and Brexit would be the most recent, local examples.

Response by Jessica
I also agree with the above, I found this article to be helpful in understanding the framework in which this capitalistic manipulation can take place. The Barnett/Weiss article highlighted three possible theories about the relationship between capitalism and humanitarianism, and Klein's examples seem to support the third - that humanitarianism has been reduced to "economic imperatives" to be used as a tool for colonial-style, capitalistic expansion.

This article is also good at highlighting how reconstruction and humanitarianism is not independent of other sectors, but in fact, is deeply entangled in issues of post-colonialism, economic inequality, othering of the global south, political corruption, etc. With all the examples provided, it seems impossible for humanitarianism to now be 'apolitical', and to continue in that way is arguably just a perpetuation of these issues.

Response by Moustafa:
I also find Kelin's account complementing Barnett and Weiss's argument, as Jessica mentions. It also reminds me of several of David Harvey's arguments on how neoliberal material relations configure the global system in which we live

Response by Ryoko
The emphasis on efficiency and profitmaking was almost shocking to me- particularly the idea of “post-conflict” plans when they do not even seem to try preventing the conflict.
I agree with Sarah that the power dynamics of neoliberal government/ aid organizations is reproducing the hierarchical relations between poorer countries at destruction and richer countries who try to extract profit out of it.
Privatization of humanitarianism seems to be intensified and in a sense seems inevitable- I am curious to know how this situation has changed after 15 years. Any monitoring mechanism/ legal enforcement put in place?

# data[].attributes.body
Somalia is a difficult reality. There is a civil war since 1991, and due to high corruption, conflicts, terrorism  the Nation IS  in extreme vulnerability. Mobility is used as protection to escape from torture, violence or simply just at the research of "a bit of peace" ,  but often its not possible to move in total liberty due to high insecurity. While Humanitarian workers could do more, the responsible of this situations are stalk holders as well as governments, firstly the federal government of Somalia.
Stefania

# data[].attributes.body
Fassin invites us to consider "politics of life" as lens through which we can inspect humanitarian action. While humanitarianism claims to be premised on 'ethics' (and morals that can be stemming form religious beliefs), the system is established on a double-standard that gives different 'values' to people. On the one hand, there are the expatriate professionals who are in a (empowered) position 'to help others' and must "must live", and on the other hand, (disempowered) 'victims' "who may die." he later invokes an Arendtian argument that disempowered marginal people are "whose stories can be told only by others" in third person narratives. This can also help us in reiterating Cornwall's (2003) concern of how "efforts are made to enable marginal voices to be raised and heard." In this sense, the narrative gives us another angle in looking at power dynamics.
Moustafa Yamada

# data[].attributes.body
The chapter raises a lot of pertinent dilemmas and contradictions to be considered in humanitarian action. The argument that it is impossible for humanitarian action to be apolitical is an interesting angle that never occurred to me as I had always wholeheartedly accepted the notion that all agencies should strive to apply the 7 fundamental principles. Looking at it from a more critical and anthropological lens, there were bound to be problems with the wholesale application of such universal concepts across a myriad of countries, contexts and communities. This made me realise that similar to human rights and the development discourse, the theory of relativism should guide how the principles are applied both to people and phenomena (e.g. the Holocaust and other genocides).
-Sheu Jeen

# data[].attributes.body
This article is devastating. It exposes humanitarianism as the most machiavellian practice: “shattered countries are attractive to the World Bank…. they take orders well… governments will do whatever it takes to get aid dollars… and with the local population struggling to find shelter and food, political organizing against privatization can seem like an imaginable luxury.” My question is: Where does international law fit in here? Who regulates the agreements between countries to receive/give “aid dollars”, who sets the conditions? For example, when Klein explains that: “Even better from the bank’s perspective, (countries hit by disaster) are in states of “limited sovereignty”: They are considered too unstable and unskilled to manage the aid money pouring in, so it is often in a trust fund managed by the World Bank,” who decides this? What is the criteria to determine that a country is unskilled to manage aid money? This is a huge red flag, it should not be legal. In my opinion, anthropology and the media have the responsibility of teaching the world better, of forcing everyone to fully overcome this biased mentality which infantilizes developing countries and questions their abilities to rule (hopefully, only with that we can expect an improvement from international aid). But real change can only be accomplished through international law. Aid should be an extremely mediated practice -countries dealing with disasters should have mechanism/institutions to protect their interests at all times-, there should be certain limits to what is allowed to be done during “unstable” circumstances -ie. the whole privatization of otherwise public sector enterprises should not be legal-, and there should be strict conditions over the profits that can be made in the “reconstruction business” -ie. when reaching certain level of revenue, companies should be forced to reinvest in the country that is being reconstructed. Does anybody know more about how this work? I really don’t want to believe that humanitarianism is hopeless, so what can we do to demand better agreements and practices?

Laura Torres

# data[].attributes.body
One thing Barnett and Weiss briefly touched upon in the article, but I would have liked to hear more about, is the ways humanitarian action often proceeds with little input from those its is supposed to benefit. Consent is assumed rather than sought, a move which is justified on the assumption that those affected have a diminished capacity to make informed decisions, and that the values of humanitarianism are universal (and therefore certain to be accepted). They quote a characterisation of an MSF doctor as 'too busy feeding rice to hungry mouths to listen to what the mouths are saying'.

This seems problematic, for want of a better word, and Klein's article this week perhaps points to a more extreme variant - the 'limited sovereignty' argument which removes control over funding from the affected communities and allows countries to be subjected to wholesale reconstruction by outside agencies in the name of 'markets' and 'democracy'. All of this points to something that's fast becoming a familiar theme on this course - about the dangers of imposing large institutional projects in the name of assumed universals which pay insufficient attention to local contexts and don't seek local input. This can similarly be seen in the Horst and Nur article, when they write of how an assumed link between a stable country and one with a fixed, non-mobile population actually results in people who live highly mobile lives being 'returned' to places where they are likely to be in danger, or that cannot reasonably be called 'home'.

Gareth Bromley

I definitely felt this too, and agree that this seems to be a recurring theme. The removal of agency from the population who 'needs to be saved' is touched on by Fassin in terms of language, when he writes of the biographical life (the life that is lived but that others narrate). The power is taken away from the 'victim' and the story is dictated by those who have the authority.
Izzi

# data[].attributes.body
Linked to the discussion on consent above, I found the discussion of Power interesting. Humanitarians may often present themselves as materially weak, but in reality have significant power to influence and affect individual's behaviours, attitudes and fates. This power is often through perceived expertise or moral authority and can control who gets aid or what kind of aid they get. The article raises interesting points about their "right" to expert authority and the ways in which this authority is applied, sometimes heavy handed. We have discussed how efforts in participatory development has attempted to address this power imbalance (with questionable success). How has this been applied in humanitarian efforts? - Karen

# data[].attributes.headline
Politics is inevitable but is it insurmountable?

# data[].attributes.subject
Politics is inevitable but is it insurmountable?

# data[].attributes.body
I really like Didier's writing, he is an extremely deep thinker, very intense and reflective, and always manages to provoke you.
This piece on the politics of Humanitarianism is another of his fantastic reads, where he speaks as an insider to the MSFs (Doctors without Borders) and stirs up some really power imagery of the Bagdad wars and the US military invasions. Didier's main arguement is that humanitarianism in itself perpetutes forms of equalities that make it a highly political process. He gives examples of the several ways in which humanitarian organizations have created hierarchies of lives - those that must be risked, and those that must be saved, those that die, and those that must be the witness to those deaths, those that are "expatriate" and those that are "national". It is really really hard to disagree with him, at least up to the point where he paints this as inevitable and unsurmountable. I agree with the inevitability, but am less supportive of insurmountability. The debates on heirarchy, power, white supremacy are hardly unique to this profession, so why can we not continue to be fierce advocates of change here? Is it only because the business of saving lives is far more political that the business of eradicating hunger? Should humanitarianism come down from its high horse or does it deserve this "exceptionalism"?
-Anu-

Response from Karen:
I too really like Fassin's writing style - accessible yet thought provoking, evocative yet well supported. He is clear on his positionality - he doesn't claim to offer a "detached examination" but rather enter into it.. This piece made me reflect in several ways. I agree that while these challenges and debates will certainly be faced, we cannot view them as insurmountable. One area that I was aware of but frankly hadn't given much thought to, was the disparity of expat vs. local workers. The example of MSF workers' healthcare (expats with French healthcare, local workers without) was tangible - and feels actionable to address. We may not be able to fix everything, but we can  take steps.
Response to Karen:
Yes, i had exactly the same thoughts, some of the institutional issues can be fixed, though ofcourse the decision to do so still remains inherently political!

# data[].attributes.headline
Insights from the history of humanitarianism -Jennifer

# data[].attributes.subject
Insights from the history of humanitarianism -Jennifer

# data[].attributes.body
Barnett and Weiss show how the underlying principles and practices of humanitarianism have shifted over time. By adopting a historical perspective their account suggests to me that these principles and practices have arguably been transformed in part through interactions between the institutions involved in providing humanitarian aid, the ‘sites’ in which aid is proved, and global politics and power structures. I was struck by the similarity with Merry's work where she demonstrates a transformative interaction between concepts and practices in the institutional arena of human rights and local cultures.

Their account strikingly illustrates how some of the basic underlying principles of humanitarianism e.g. independence, have been abandoned by the various agencies involved in providing humanitarian aid; and how the purpose and intention of aid has shifted and become more political and strategic, particularly since the end of the Cold War.

# data[].attributes.body
Barnett and Weiss raise a wide range of questions that make us question the 'global system' (of power) continues to creep into different fronts. They invite us to think how the lines of development, global market, and humanitarianism have been blurred, and accordingly, who has authority and who has the right to live (and the right to 'protect' others). They make us question whether it is based on 'morals, and values' which invokes many of last week's readings, and whose morals and values are represented.
Moustafa Yamada

Response to Moustafa Yamada by Bo Yang

I feel that the key of this problem is giving attention to the advanced materials (products of modernised technology, such as medicines, transport, goods, food) with attached ethics, morality, value, power and representations from providers (such as state, institution, NGO from certain countries). The advanced materials are needed for each person, in now age. It is produced from technologies without constructed social/cultural/humanitarianism meanings. However, the 'meaning' of materials are shaped and inscribed by the user with certain purposes. Materials thus are never things, but things with meanings, indications and power, as well as relations between human, between groups of human, between agents who use it and who have to use it.

Bo Yang

# data[].attributes.headline
Is it a step back from development and power or a step in ?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is it a step back from development and power or a step in ?

# data[].attributes.body
Barnett and Weiss do a great job of putting together the basic principles which formulate the term "humanitarianism."  It portrays a framework that ties in the construct of power and dominance to the purpose of humanitarianism in anchoring relationships during disputes in societies.  The two trends post cold-war acts like an oxymoron as the first trend indicates an emergence of a "golden era", while the other trend describes it as a plummet into the "dark age." It was interesting to perceive humanitarianism in such a different light as with the inclusion of all factors that exist amongst dictating agencies, I was confused to understand what really distinguishes humanitarianism? I agreed with the statement that , "humanitarian system will very much be defined by relief." But relief can be perceived in many ways, could it be the relief to get rid of organizations that have their interest-driven factors that make them maneuever themselves to be known as "humanitarian organizations", or a relief to have someone take care of communities and their people in an altruistic manner. Reiff's analogy in my opinion depicts the failure of humanitarianism into the hands of entities that have been inveigled with the covet of power and dominance, hence the unbreakable bond between humanitarianism and politics. To me, it seems like a continuous cycle that leads to the expansion of power in development which has led to imperialism in the past and could continue to move forward in that direction in the future.

-Enakshi

# data[].attributes.body
Response to Moustafa by Maria Mónica Gutierrez

Complete agree with you, as Didier says, humanitarism falls into the subject vs. objects binary, by giving subjects (humanitariam aid workers and entities) the agency of becoming the spokepersons of those "unfortunate whose suffering is testified to in front of the world". In this sense, it appears to me, humanitarism probably stays in a "band aid" level, that isn't really enabling real core solutions to ultimately save lives.

# data[].attributes.body
It is really devastating to become aware of the complexity capitalism (and development) brings to its "beneficiaries". The World Bank has managed to have much more power than it is reasonable, as well as new appearing donors who have their own interests, far from the "beneficiaries" needs. And, it is even more devastating to know they take complete advantage in natural disaster situations to, as we said in the lecture "enter the back door" and once again, violate the integrity and 'humanness' of any community. - María Mónica Gutiérrez

# data[].attributes.body
This chapter by Barnett and Weiss extensively elaborates on the historical development of humanitarian practices.
What was particularly striking to me, in combination with Klein’s article is the increasing institutionalization, internationalization, and privatization of humanitarian actions, which complicate the funding environment and challenge the principles such as neutrality and independence. I agree with the author that humanitarianism cannot be apolitical. It always involves choices on who to include and exclude as a subject of humanitarian assistance, shaped by various forces and structures. As is the case with development, it seems critical to keep interrogating what are the underlying discourses that shape the humanitarian practices, and whose voices are represented/ muted.

Ryoko

# data[].attributes.body
I understand the conclusion that Barnet and Weiss draw that the way to lift the ‘fog of humanitarianism’ is through consistent academic reflection and learning of the history and current issues around humanitarianism – and agree that this is important, particularly in light of Klein's piece. This will inevitably involve reflexivity, as humanitarian workers will be led to question their own role in the system as a whole. However, I wonder if this might not be further muddying the waters. In this instance, would humanitarianism become just as much about studying itself as helping those in a crisis? Does this leave space for practical intervention? Thinking back to Lewis and Gardner, I wonder if this might easily lead the way to a case of post-modern political apathy.

- Maria

# data[].attributes.body
The fact that international organisations that are deemed respected and have as much power in their hands as the World Bank have issues on their own does not come as a surprise. Big organisations and institutions, whether national and especially international always have their own agenda.
However, what wasn't expected was the hypocrisy, for instance regarding the transparency of funds. How can a well respected institution enforce a plan without following it iself?

# data[].attributes.headline
Fassin’s article is very engaging and written with so much detail. As he is an insider to the MSF (Doctors without Borders), he knows exactly what he is talking about and really provokes you. He draws attention to the lives risked and lives saved in terms of the missions the MSF undertook, especially in Iraq. Furthermore, he talks about the humanitarian organisations and how they justify and perceive actions that need to be taken, such as the hostage taking in Iraq. What I also found very interesting was how that within a humanitarian organisation the hierarchy present, the division between the ‘expatriates’ and the ‘nationals. It really shows that also with humanitarian organisations white supremacy/ Western World is very visible.  

# data[].attributes.subject
Fassin’s article is very engaging and written with so much detail. As he is an insider to the MSF (Doctors without Borders), he knows exactly what he is talking about and really provokes you. He draws attention to the lives risked and lives saved in terms of the missions the MSF undertook, especially in Iraq. Furthermore, he talks about the humanitarian organisations and how they justify and perceive actions that need to be taken, such as the hostage taking in Iraq. What I also found very interesting was how that within a humanitarian organisation the hierarchy present, the division between the ‘expatriates’ and the ‘nationals. It really shows that also with humanitarian organisations white supremacy/ Western World is very visible.  

# data[].attributes.body
Tessa

# data[].attributes.headline
Tokyo2020 Olympic and Disaster Capitalism

# data[].attributes.subject
Tokyo2020 Olympic and Disaster Capitalism

# data[].attributes.body
After I read Klein's article, one thing immediately came up into my mind. It is Olympic that was supposed to be held in Tokyo this year. (IOC and Japan are desperately seeking to re-hold next year, but who knows?)
I am not sure if it is familiar to you all however, this Olympic, Tokyo2020, is called 'reconstruction Olympic' in Japan. Reconstruction in this context means recovery from the Great East Japan Earthquake happened in 2011. There are still many people who are faced with living in temporary housing or enabling to rebuild their own small businesses. Even though the government budget, in fact Tokyo is the major organizer of the Olympic, needs to be allocated directly to these disaster areas and citizens, the government and Tokyo strongly pushed to have it by calling 'reconstruction Olympic'. Needless to say, it came to light that the IOC and Tokyo Olympic committee accepted the bribe.
Disaster Capitalism sounds very bold and large scale but it may be very subtle and devious in order to elude the eyes of vulnerable citizens. Is it possible for us to cease big firms and higher officials that they would utilize the circumstances someone is suffering? But how should we draw boundaries between disaster capitalism and good attempts which just happened during/after the crisis?
-Ayaka

# data[].attributes.body
Reading this article, I, like all of the other commenters here, was both shocked and appalled at what Klein reports about the provision of humanitarian relief in disaster zones. What I have been trying to figure out is which ethical lens we might most appropriately apply to disaster capitalism- I am not sure that I have fully worked it out yet, and my thoughts around this are still fledgling. To my mind, it is clear that a deontology is inapplicable here, however, I struggle to work out whether we can apply consequentialism. If consequentialism holds that the goodness of an act is contained within its very outcome and not within the act itself, can we see these humanitarian acts that Klein describes as consequentially good?  Is it enough to say that these acts are morally good because they provide some form of aid and assistance in the wake of disaster, albeit aid that stipulates the imposition of neo-liberal norms and ultimately functions to restructure? Equally, to refer to the example of the blue tarps that was raised in the lecture, is it testament to the goodness of the action that that the tarps were provided at all, regardless of the fact that in the process of putting these up privatisation and sub contraction occurred to such a great extent that the people who actually did the work received beyond negligible payment? I'm still thinking about it and whether there are any other ways to frame it?
Claudia

# data[].attributes.body
For lack of better wording, the Machiavellian dilemma springs back to mind/  From the discussion and the materials I read (and the reiteration of principles of humanitarian intervention in B&W),  it seems to me that there may be a job for the anthropologist to unpick what 'aid' has come to mean.  I was indeed surprised (but then also not surprised) to read the name Blackwater on the slides as this 'company' is the perfect, yet disquieting, representation of the evolution of the term humanitarian.  Or is it.     Safety  services and technical assistance to armies having recently been included in all things humanitarian (and being funded by donors) means to me that the anthropologist may have a role in unpick the debate and separate out geopolitics from humanitarian aid.  The related big question is whether anthropology should be equated with engaged, as doing so clearly brings in a (particular) hierarchy of values which to me seems directly at odds with the overarching principle of reflexivity we argue we practice.

# data[].attributes.body
Even translated, Fassin's ideas come across clearly and give much food for thought on the contradictions within humanitarian intervention.
He explores the actions of MSF in Iraq in the early 2000s, giving a unique insider perspective as Vice-President of MSF France at the time. I found his discussion of the debate surrounding what justified the risk posed to MSF workers in Iraq interesting. When members explained that their presence was justified by the principles that MSF upheld, I couldn't help but wonder if this was not simply a case of presenteeism.. The case of the MSF worker's abduction in Iraq highlighted the flimsiness of 'principles' or "ethics in action" in the face of real danger and how the risked lives of humanitarian workers held a higher value to the lives that could potentially be saved.
Fassin ends his piece with what I found to be at the core of contemporary debates around humanitarian intervention, that the 'politics of life' as he calls it are beyond the sphere of just humanitarian intervention. They reflect wider society and as he says "these are what characterises the political disorder of the world: the inequality of lives".

Claire Bate-Roullin

# data[].attributes.body
I think the trade-off Fassin mentions can be interpreted in the dual ' hyerarchical manner but I think there is something else that we kept discussing in the field and that is - the trade off between diplomatic and humanitarian action. So humanitarism as new colonialism (a view that MSF was very strongly against) but also - humanitarism as compensation for the (I would say quite obvious) inability or better - avoidance - to address international crises using negotiations and politics.

# data[].attributes.body
Klein's 'disaster capitalism' is a perfect example of Barnett and Weiss's claim about humanitarianism being deeply political and constituting an exercise of power. It also supports the view of "capitalism as the structure and humanitarianism as the superstructure that is functional for capitalist reproduction and expansion" that they mention (p. 16). Indeed, humanitarianism is used as a justification for the expansion of capitalist interests. This also applies to military interventions, as Fassin briefly describes.
While reading Klein's piece, I was thinking about the current situation in Lebanon: after the explosion of the port of Beirut that destroyed a huge part of the city, Macron made a visit to Lebanon, and brought with him a high official of a company that is hoping to get the contract for the reconstruction and management of the port. He then proposed a plan to help the country, promising humanitarian aid under some conditions, including that the prime minister form the new government in accordance with his wishes. Incidentally, those requirements matched the demands of the Lebanese population (a government made up of individuals who are not affiliated with current political parties, measures against corruption, etc.), but they were not set for the benefit of the Lebanese population but for French interests. Now that the government has failed to meet the demands, aid is no longer on the table - even though the aid was to be given to NGOs and not to the government due to state corruption. The plan also included French companies taking over public institutions, such as the electricity company, as well as the telecom companies. Essentially, the French state tried to take advantage of the explosion, portraying itself as saviour while using the situation to strengthen its hold on the Mediterranean through the port of Beirut, and give reconstruction contracts to French companies. Despite the clear danger of the French initiative and its neo-colonial implications, it was supported by the Lebanese population, because it represented our only hope for things to get marginally better - or just to stop getting worse. Interestingly, all of the points made by Klein in her piece are applicable to the Lebanese situation.
- Mounia

# data[].attributes.body
By no means should this post be interpreted in a way as to be an advocate for the agency of corporations and states which promote capitalist expansion. The question though which arose in me is the following: how would humanitarianism be able to operate if we are to rid it from these negative influences coming as a side-product of states and corporations taking part in the activity the least extent of which would be the contribution by providing funding? If we are unable to steer the approach of these entities into the right direction, then how would humanitarian aims meet the required financial resources? Can we find some positive aspects in external funding by these entities which would imply that it is still worth it to rely upon them, in the absence of other voluntary funders? Should humanitarianism at present choose to be powerless but free, or empowered but externally influenced?

Andrew

# data[].attributes.body
In the adverse of the criticisms which this source highlights in terms of humanitarian aims and execution, I think there is an aspect which is hardly debatable about the good which the concept of humanitarianism brings into our world.
The people who actually join the humanitarian organization and do the work which saves people don't do it for economic profit in the most cases I reckon, and I think most would agree on this assumption. I think a significant proportion of workers do it voluntarily even.
Regardless of the fact that the funding goes not entirely to the right place, the aid is based on a hierarchy the ones at the end of which get excluded, the distribution is not always rational or utilitarian enough, and in numerous cases neoliberalism gets promoted and kind of forced upon the territories in need...
The ones who go there because they actually want to help others, share their pain and try to alleviate their suffering with their presence which says them "you are not alone in this, and you are important to this world" do make for a phenomenon which sheds a pretty impressive light on humanitarianism. If there is a concept which can get people to go to these places and help in person, and make ANYONE happier, I think this is something that should never be forgotten about humanitarianism. It may well be that this indirect product of humanitarianism is not something the humanitarian concept could claim credit for, although it still is the concept which gave rise to it. Thus even with the negative aspects provided, humanitarianism still makes something beautiful. Probably many have already seen the even little bit cliché pictures of advertisements which promote human cooperation in some way. Where people of all color stand together and hold each other's hand or smile into the camera. This idealistic picture is what in reality happens when humanitarian workers meet the ones in need and provide care and empathy. And I think this picture should always be at the back of the minds of people who criticize humanitarian aims to a great extent. There is something we already achieved!

Andrew

# data[].attributes.body
What attract me most are Halima and Hassan's true stories of migration. Unlike the humanitarian activism's emphasis on the conception of stability and dignity, mobility was the best strategy for local people to ensure their lives and security in an area filled with conflict and violent group such as al-Shabaab. Halima migrated and returned for several times for balancing 'security needs against livelihood survival on a family level'. These self-determined migrations reflected a flexible and efficient arrangement based on individual or family needs and in response to the changes of local situation. Likewise, Hassan's migration experience illustrated his needs in different contexts as he ages. I think 'need' and 'efficiency' are two important points in evaluating the aims that humanitarian activities set and whether they really matched them or not, and a generalized stabilization and return discourse within humanitarian has prevented it from save lives, alleviate suffering. I think it would be better if humanitarians try to draw on expertise to identify people's needs and serve them (though, of course, professionalism is something to be wary of), rather than brutally substitute their needs.
-Zhenyuan Fang

# data[].attributes.body
This was a deeply disturbing but profoundly important article. It  was almost a reflection of wider societal issues progression; good intentions being poisoned by the surrounding political context and power structures that individuals and organisation must succumb to. It left me wondering whether anything could be truly apolitical, whilst politics dominates so much of our daily life. Didier proved to me that even the concept of life is layered in political meanings. Are we too far gone as a society, too deep in political narratives, to ever be truly neutral from it?
- Charlotte

# data[].attributes.body
This article is really overwhelming. After reading the words of (Klein)  I reflected about the fact that very often 'government' is the problem and not the solution, and again, developed countries take advantage from those who are in the middle of crises, eager to increase their fortune when things goes worse for those already in extreme need.
Stefania

# data[].attributes.headline
Further comments on 'The Shock Doctrine' 

# data[].attributes.subject
Further comments on 'The Shock Doctrine' 

# data[].attributes.body
In agreement with all above, I add that Klein's application of the analogy of electroshock therapy used by CIA to make "blank states" encapsulates the violence at the heart of the emergent industry of disaster capitalism. Her critique of neoliberal approaches to humanitarian emergencies echoes Barnett and Weiss's debate on the politics, power and ethics of humanitarianism. The "frontier capitalism" of the US, and it's hegemonic power, elicits imagery of empire. Klein exposes the economic imperative and mission to capitalise on catastrophe - stretching this, she argues they engineer catastrophe, revealing the dark motives of global elite. Barnett and Weiss's claims to the inextricable relationship of politics and humanitarianism foregrounds Klein's thesis. Klein forwards that the "holy trinity" of the IMF, WB and WTO are implicated in the US's sponsored globalisation - can development be apolitical? Who determines who has power to speak on behalf of who?
Kitty

# data[].attributes.body
This article is a well-made account of disaster capitalism, of the power that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund truly have and how they shape the image of the world. The examples brought to the forefront by Naomi Klein shed a light upon the way in which these huge institutions capitalize on disasters. Contrary to popular belief, we don't wait for catastrophes to happen anymore before coming up with a plan for rebuilding up whatever has been damaged- we now have (I mean, America does) an Office for the Coordination for Reconstruction and Stabilization.
And most of the efforts portrayed in the media as 'humanitarian acts' that were supposed to help build up  communities and empower people in the face of disaster, have in fact stripped them of their assets even more, displacing them from their homes, exposing them to more injustice and leaving them in debt with nothing in their possession, sheltered in refugee camps or army tents. And all of this in the name of tourism, and profit.
It is quite infuriating to have all of this knowledge and not be able to do anything about it, especially when you sense inequality so strongly and when you fear you might so easily fall in a similar situation. If the World Bank is still looking so avidly for empty places, or better said for devastated places to rebuild, and you realize that we are now going through a major deconstruction in society, mainly due to the Covid 19 pandemic,  it makes you see all the possibilities in which it could further its involvement within the society.
Klein showed very well how the agenda of the Office for Reconstruction and Stabilization  revolves around privatization of state owned businesses and industrialization in areas where local businesses were once operating. This situation that we are now in, faced with lock-downs and small businesses being forced to shut down because they cannot afford to keep their businesses going, fuels the big institutions that are still allowed to function and that are considered essential, such as food supply stores and pharmaceutical stores; whilst the small businesses and more importantly, people individually, are very easily overlooked.
-Ioana Illes