Humanitarian Action and Foreign Policy: Balancing Interests and Values

Full Text

Using a foreign policy lens to understand how states engage in humanitarian action, and juggle competing interests, values and priorities, is a powerful way to consider both DAC and non-DAC donors against a common framework – as well as offering suggestions on how best to engage them in advocating for more effective humanitarian action, a new report by the Overseas Development Institute stresses.
In their study titled ‘Humanitarian action and foreign policy: Balancing interests and values’, BARNABY WILLITTS-KING, SHERINE EL TARABOULSI-MCCARTHY and JOHN BRYANT explore how the humanitarian action undertaken by different states interacts with their foreign policy in a period of geopolitical turbulence. They show that state humanitarian action is constantly evolving in an elaborate relationship with other foreign policy priorities.
“There are multiple examples of where these other interests take the focus away from humanitarian priorities, such as when national security and trade opportunities dominate,” they write. “But to argue for the depoliticization of aid is both unrealistic and misses the opportunity to harness the power of states – both DAC and non-DAC – for better humanitarian outcomes by engaging with them differently.”
Humanitarian action is inescapably part of foreign policy, and needs to be considered in that light, the report stresses. Aid can be at once humanitarian and in the national interest, despite this being uncomfortable territory for humanitarians. These two goals need not be intrinsically opposed – but also where they are in conflict – need to be better defined and explained.
The authors make the following recommendations to states, donors and humanitarian agencies:

Understand the politics
Applying a foreign policy lens can help in better understanding how countries can engage effectively beyond donorship. The politics of aid is a reality. Understanding the bureaucratic and political drivers of donor decision-making is therefore key to engaging constructively and effectively with that process. In the current climate of realist approaches to foreign policy, this means engaging with the language of ‘aid in the national interest’ and finding ways to express and promote principled and values-based approaches in those terms – but without being co-opted or compromising these values. Where necessary, realist narratives should be countered with arguments based on values.
Humanitarian actors must recognize that bureaucracies are complex and not as monolithic as they may appear and should give greater priority to finding champions and opportunities to influence people and processes. Engaging directly with diplomats for example – whether in the field or at headquarters – rather than just aid officials, offers scope to understand and influence the wider context within which states engage in crises.
Building stronger bridges between the diplomatic and humanitarian parts of governments to forge a pragmatic partnership based on more mutual understanding of motivations and drivers is critical. Rather than seeing diplomats as the ‘dark side’ of government, their role in managing multiple interests means that they need to be engaged if humanitarians are to better communicate the reasons for a humanitarian focus. Keeping an open mind towards the opportunities of a more politically informed, constructive engagement with foreign policymaking should strengthen rather than undermine humanitarian priorities.

Recognize diversity in donorship
In advocacy terms, there is a role for civil society – primarily domestic NGOs – to push their governments to clarify how they balance competing interests, why decisions appear to go against stated humanitarian policy, or where different policies are incompatible.
Civil society space is essential to ensuring a critical voice. Donors must continue to support independent civil society, both at crisis level, through support to locally led responses, and internationally.
Recognizing that all governments, whether DAC or non-DAC make (usually rational) choices between different priorities argues for a deeper understanding of what drives different states’ decisions, so that advocacy can be tailored to their specific frames of reference. This applies particularly to relationships between DAC and non-DAC donors. While being realistic about the limits of such partnerships, DAC/GHD donors should broaden their fora or find alternatives for discussing policy towards countries in crisis.
While DAC donors continue to provide the bulk of reported contributions to the ‘formal’ humanitarian system, comprising the UN, the Red Cross Movement and NGOs, there is increasing recognition of the role of non-DAC donors in funding or operating in different crises. Beyond simple caricature, their motivations are in reality just as complex and multifaceted as those of the DAC donors. There is a need to recognize the different advantages and disadvantages of different donors, whether through geography or relationships in particular crises, for example as a result of colonial history or shared religious affiliation. Different donors also prioritize different sectors or geographic areas for funding, for example Australia’s focus on the Asia-Pacific, or the Gulf States’ preference for the Arab world. Better appreciation of and transparency around diverse approaches is needed to do aggregate each state’s efforts, rather than assuming there is a single ideal donor model. Relationships are being strengthened between DAC and non-DAC donors, particularly at field/crisis level, but further efforts are needed to cultivate stronger institutional relationships based on shared interests and a more nuanced understanding of diverse approaches to humanitarian action. This could take the form of exchanges for institution building or joint research.

Strive for transparency
States need to be more explicit and transparent about their humanitarian commitments, and where these commitments collide or conflict with other objectives and policies, where they are de-prioritized, or where they align with the national interest. Models of crisis-level donor coordination according to comparative advantage should be documented and highlighted, for example in DAC peer reviews.

Revisit humanitarian principles across cultures
Central to building credible relationships between ‘rising’ and ‘established’ donors will be an appreciation of the different values underlying their responses – but also identifying where there is common ground. Principles can exclude, but they can also be made operationally meaningful.
Emerging platforms for non-Western civil society and foundations, such as the Arab Foundations Forum, can be galvanized to provide an opportunity for collaboration with international actors, and for investments in in-depth and sustained debate on aid policies around the world.