Why we exist
This page is also available in Arabic
Around the world, the challenges of meeting humanitarian and development needs are enormous. We all recognise this, but still we struggle to work together. There are gaps between humanitarian communities - those in the West and those in the East, those in the North and those in the South - which seem to come from perceptions about quality and trustworthiness.
So why are there so few partnerships? The answer may lie in the existence of sterotypes and misperceptions. We need to tackle these prejudices to improve humanitarian aid:
- Western/multilateral organisations are often blamed for the actions of a few Governments, and seen as imperial or religiously motivated: "humanitarianism" becomes loaded. Some see a deliberate policy to remove Islamic organisations from Muslim areas, and many Western organisations are assumed to be imposing their own values or seeking (or forcing) converts. It doesn't help that they're also seen as elitist, excluding "non-traditional" actors through language, cliques, technology or geography.
- Islamic organisations are often seen as motivated by religion, and (crudely) as supporting conservatism. Again, "humanitarianism" becomes religion or politics by a different name; the organisations are thought to be run by zealots or terrorists. Even without this, they're seen as secretive, old-fashioned or ineffective.
- Southern organisations are often seen (crudely) as profit-seeking (or even corrupt) and biased. Where their motives aren't questioned, they are seen as small and ineffective.
If we can overcome these prejudices, we can access a powerful new wave of humanitarianism. The arguments for different humanitarian communities - multilateral, Western, Islamic, Northern, Southern - to work together are highly convincing:
- Embracing reality: They are each a fact on the ground, with an important humanitarian heritage. Many have crucial local or cultural knowledge that improves projects, and gives them credibility and access. They also have access to different kinds of funding. For instance, Gulf-based INGOs have an annual worth of USD 2-3bn and work in many of the most complex parts of the world.
- Improving the quality of development and humanitarian work: Major actors need to understand each other better, and feel more able to share information and ideas. How else can we say to those in need that we are working in the most effective way ?
- Building trust between different kinds of actors: There's a deep coincidence of humanitarian need, religion and conflict. Humanitarian aid - and even development work - should be seen as a neutral area to build trust between antagonistic communities. In an era of increasing radicalisation and difficulty of humanitarian access, this should have valuable knock-on effects when thinking about everything from war in Iraq to minarets in Switzerland.
We have a responsibility to help those in need. The Humanitarian Forum provides a neutral platform to bring together those that have the solutions.
