There is as yet no collection that examines the longer histories of global humanitarianism and media culture, which would enable readers to consider the various continuities, as well as the differences, characterising the mass media's relationship with international humanitarian crisis and relief. This collection examines this relationship from the 1950s to the present, from Marshall Plan documentaries and the promotion of the Peace Corps in the decades following the Second World War to the role of Facebook in the work of NGOS and the media's response to the current refugee crisis. The majority of the contributors to the proposed volume are specialists in the fields of media, film and cultural studies and approach the question of humanitarianism-media culture relations from a variety of critical and theoretical perspectives, and draw on other disciplines such as sociology, journalism, politics and anthropology.
Introduction : global humanitarianism and media culture -- Histories of humanity. "United Nations children" in Hollywood cinema : juvenile actors and humanitarian sentiment in the 1940s / Michael Lawrence -- Classical antiquity as a humanitarian narrative : the Marshall Plan films about Greece / Katerina Loukopoulou -- "The most potent public relations tool ever devised"? : the United States Peace Corps in the early 1960s / Agnieszka Sobocinska -- Narratives of humanitarianism. The naive republic of aid : grassroots exceptionalism in humanitarian memoir / Emily Bauman -- "Telegenically dead Palestinians" : cinema, news media and perception management of the Gaza conflicts / Sohini Chaudhuri -- The unknown famine : television and the politics of British humanitarianism / Andrew Jones -- Reporting refuge and risk. European borderscapes : the management of migration between care and control / Pierluigi Musarò -- The role of aid agencies in the media portrayl of children in Za'atari Refuge Camp / Toby Fricker -- Selling the lottery to earn salvation : journalism practice, risk and humanitarian communication / Jairo Lugo-Ocando and Gabriel Andrade -- Capitalism, consumption and charity. Consumption, global humanitarianism and childhood / Laura Suski -- Liking visuals and visually liking on Facebook : from starving children to satirical saviours / Rachel Tavernor -- The corporate karma carnival : offline and online games, branding and humanitarianism at the Roskilde Festival / Lene Bull Christiansen and Mette Fog Olwig.
ABSTRACTHumanitarianism – that is, the political, economic and military interference in the domestic affairs of a state justified by a nascent transnational morality – is one of the defining and most controversial features of the post-Cold War period. This article advances nine theses, arguing that humanitarianism has a simplistic worldview, that coercive humanitarian actions trigger negative consequences, that humanitarianism is quite effective in sheltering Western states from the spillover effects of political crises but is less so in solving the problems it claims to address. These arguments are illustrated with reference to four prominent cases: Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda and Darfur. The article concludes with a brief outline of an alternative humanitarian approach.
Based on extensive field interviews in Afghanistan, this briefing paper is an update of a 2006 study on perceptions of humanitarian action in Afghanistan, which was part of the Humanitarian Agenda 2015 research program. The paper highlights critical issues affecting the provision of humanitarian action and suggests how they could, partially at least, be redressed. Building on data collected through interviews in the aid community as well as with ordinary Afghans, the briefing paper finds that humanitarianism is under deep threat in Afghanistan because of the perceived association of aid agencies with the US-led intervention. Humanitarian actors and the principles they profess are under attack. The ability of humanitarian agencies to address urgent need is compromised by internal and external factors, i.e., both by the organization and modus operandi of aid agencies on the ground, and by an extremely volatile and dangerous operating environment.The aid community in Afghanistan faces severe challenges that need to be urgently addressed so that civilians in need can be protected and assisted and the credibility of the humanitarian enterprise restored. Opportunities for more principled humanitarian action, by separating or insulating it from political and military agendas, should not be missed. Failure to do so will have dire consequences for Afghans and for the future of humanitarianism worldwide.
Over the last two decades a spate of books, led by the ones cited in this essay, have illuminated and debated the bristly questions confronting contemporary "humanitarianism." The definitional or, one might say, foundational question is whether the adjective "humanitarian" should be limited to only those independent agencies that are engaged (without reference to a political context) in the impartial delivery of emergency relief to all those in existential need—or, in the unique case of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), engaged in monitoring the application of the Geneva Conventions to armed conflict. An answer in the affirmative could be considered the "classic" position of the humanitarian, and one still championed by the ICRC. Today, however, many NGOs, such as CARE, OXFAM, and Catholic Relief Services, which certainly regard themselves as humanitarian agencies, engage in a broad range of rehabilitative and developmental activities and continue to deliver emergency relief, and they are prepared to do so under circumstances where their work has conspicuous political implications. The same is true of such UN agencies as UNICEF, UNHCR, and the World Food Programme, which are not infrequently involved in complex peace operations that have clear political goals as specified by the Security Council. Further, well-known humanitarian activists and writers, notably Bernard Kouchner and Samantha Power, also reject the ICRC's definitional canon. The unsettled boundaries of what properly constitutes humanitarianism brings a number of difficult questions to the surface, including: •Should relief be provided even if it could prolong a conflict, or could indirectly assist a belligerent, or possibly identify the relief giver with a government's political ends? And should the nature of those ends influence relief efforts?•Should relief agencies also assist in addressing the causes of humanitarian emergencies by joining in efforts to resolve a conflict, foster economic development, rebuild state institutions, and strengthen the protection of human rights?•Should such agencies accept funds from governments where governments specify how the funds are to be used?•Where necessary, should they advocate armed intervention to protect their personnel as well as the recipients of their aid?•In terms of the way they organize and structure themselves, should nonprofit agencies dedicated to humanitarian relief follow private-sector models?•Can organizations dedicated to the effective provision of emergency relief pursue that end without creating a culture of dependence, without discouraging local initiative, and without violating the liberal "right" to participate in life-shaping decisions?•Finally, how does humanitarianism relate to human rights, the other leading expression of what I would call "the humanitarian impulse"?
Some have suggested that neutral humanitarianism is dead in the aftermath of the Cold War and 9/11. This article challenges the critical view called neo-humanitarianism and suggests that organizations such as the ICRC can carefully carve out an image of relative neutrality. This article argues that the difficulties associated with neutrality are not new and the ICRC has been grappling with them for decades. Various examples from history, including the Italian-Ethiopian War, World War II, and the Korean War, suggest the various complexities associated with neutrality. The fundamental focus of this article is how to construct an image and policies that are perceived to be relatively neutral in order to allow access to victims in need of humanitarian assistance and protection. Adapted from the source document.
The main claim in this article is that humanitarianism can be depicted as an attempt at establishing a realistic utopia. This is supported by a comparison between More's Utopia and Dunant's A Memory of Solferino. Despite the differences in style and context, both authors demonstrate a sensitive understanding of human nature and war. They both show that war should be conducted in a way that reduces suffering. Several of their ideas that seemed far-fetched at the time have entered the political mainstream. This, in turn, demonstrates that some visions of utopia can turn out to be practical. Dunant's text illustrates this by making concrete proposals that brought about long lasting changes in the way war is carried out. Despite coming short of abolishing war, his text presents a realistic utopia that broadened ideas around what may be politically possible. ; peer-reviewed
