Humanitarianism and Neocolonialism
Michele Glatthaar, Genesis
Bolanos, and Catalina Vasquez, Kalina Boukova, Nicole Dobreva, and Elizabeth
Nikolova
Neocolonialism
There
is much debate about whether humanitarianism is a form of neocolonialism.
Neocolonialism is defined as “the economic and political policies by
which a great power indirectly maintains or extends its influence over other
areas of people.” The people in these areas are generally viewed as
inferior and less educated. They are pitied by the dominant group. Strong
nations use their economic influence on a weaker geographic location and
benefits from the resources of that place. According to the Encyclopedia of American Foreign
Relations, the definition of neocolonialism shifts based on the
group or individual that is asked to define it. “Socialist and communist
writers have defined it as the efforts of the former colonial powers to
maintain colonial control by other means.” The United States is an example of a
former colonial power that still exerts its power on nations deemed inferior
and maintains control of those areas. Ways in which the United States exerts
its power is through the “retention of military bases, exploitation of
resources, preferential trade treaties, imposed unification of colonies,
conditional aid, and defense treaties” (Encyclopedia of American Foreign
Relations).
It
would be difficult to discuss and understand the meaning of neocolonialism
without considering colonialism. Therefore, we will analyze colonialism and its
impact throughout the world. The term “neocolonialism” is used to describe
modern colonialism in which “developed nations” exert power over another region
and group of people. Because neocolonialism derived as a result of colonialism,
they share many similarities. Both neocolonialism and colonialism benefit one
group while oppressing another group. Those who were considered political and
economic powers during colonialism are the same nations that have control,
authority, and power under neocolonialism. Jean-Paul Sartre, a native of
Algeria, a country on the African continent, explains similarities that
neocolonialism and colonialism share. In his book, Colonialism and
Neocolonialism, Sartre describes “the oppressive and violent nature that colonialism and
neo-colonialism unleash”. Neocolonialism works to systematically and
perpetually oppresses groups that have been historically oppressed as a result
of colonialism.
In the video below, Julius Agbor a Research Fellow at the Brookings Institution explains how the systems of colonialism still faces problems as a result of their historical ties with colonialism.Traces of colonialism and the role of neocolonialism within African societies heavily contributes to societal, educational, economic, and political issues throughout the entire continent.
Humanitarianism
Humanitarianism is a term used to describe “humanitarian principles or practices” It
is the promotion of social reform and human welfare. The goal of
humanitarianism and humanitarian work is to improve the quality of people’s
lives through service work, aid, and assistance. Humanitarianism is often
linked with neocolonialism. This is because much of the humanitarian work done
throughout the world occurs when individuals in powerful and westernized
nations donate time and funding to countries that are viewed as inferior. The
dominant group’s goal through this humanitarian work is to help and enhance the
lives of people living in these impoverished parts of the world. The
international humanitarian work that is most popular and publicized throughout
the United States takes place on the continent of Africa. This is quite ironic
considering Africa’s history of colonialism.
The video above describes humanitarianism and the impact humanitarian
work has on the world on a global scale. It helps to further understand
the meaning of humanitarianism and the goals of humanitarianism.
Colonialism, neocolonialism, and humanitarianism all have one key
concept in common; they require one group to take control over another group.
However, does that make humanitarianism a form of neocolonialism? Throughout
the remainder of this blog post, we will be analyzing the relationship between
humanitarianism and neocolonialism. In hopes of gaining a better understanding
both sides of the argument, we will be analyzing the question from both
perspectives. First, we will explain how one may not consider humanitarianism
to be neocolonial. Then, we will analyze the question from another perspective
by explaining why other people view humanitarianism as a form of
neocolonialism.
Why is humanitarianism neocolonial?
Humanitarian work is supposed to “improve” local communities but despite
the presence of outside charities the livelihood of most communities remains
unchanged. Residents remain under poverty, face difficulties in accessing
education, food security, furthermore, it creates an inferior superior complex.
The definition of Humanitarianism itself implies morality, kindness,
and sympathy but what happens when the effects of humanitarianism resemble
those of traditional colonialism? What happens when the recipients of “help”
from humanitarianism don’t necessarily want the help? And what happens when the
humanitarian himself/herself is helping for ulterior motives?
The White Savior Complex and the Single Story
The first issue with humanitarianism is the promotion of the white
savior complex. A white savior is someone who
attempts to “fix” the problems faced by countries without taking into
consideration social, cultural and political complexities of communities. This
is seen in Europeans earliest interactions with the local people of all
contents that were colonized. There was an obsession to Christianize and
modernize the savages or natives who were portrayed as grateful for the white
aid. Today we continue to see the idea of the white savior going out of his/her
way to help the marginalized by building schools or donating money to
charities. The white savior does not always have bad intentions. On the
contrary many times white saviors attempt to do good by donating money to
impoverished countries. So what is possibly wrong with donating money for a good
cause? Well many times by thinking that we know what these communities need we
actively silence communities we are attempting to help. Rather then providing a
context where these communities have agency and are able to provide there own
narratives. We tell these people what they want and need and this doesn’t
necessarily help them.
In Bradford Baker paper “humanitarianism as Neocolonialism” he traces the neocolonialism he encountered while traveling around the world to complete his major. Baker recounts the situation he found himself in when he was in Uganda. Due to the civil war that caused thousands of casualties, numerous teams were sent to the country to help the civilians recover from the tragedy. However, Bradford found that the teams that were sent from American and European countries earned a significantly higher income than the African workers that were there to assist as well. He also discovered that Westerners had houses that were far away from the affected areas assuring them with comfort and tranquility, which is really not the reason they were sent there. Furthermore, the head of the operation was a woman from Michigan that had never had any experience with similar situations and actually this was her first internship after college. Consequently, after a few months she was appointed as the leader of these teams leaving her responsible for hundreds of people. The special treatment received by the American and European humanitarians as opposed to their African counterparts points to a social hierarchy where the ‘white savior’ as at the top and therefore needs to be doing the saving and people from the own community who might be more knowledgeable about what needs to be done are devalued.
Another negative aspect linked to humanitarianism and charity is the portrayal
of marginalized groups. The advertisements used to make us feel like we need to
help are often pictures and videos of hopeless African’s with aids or crying
children that need our help. This portrayal creates the sense of “otherness.”
We begin to identify marginalized groups through a singe lens of poor and
unhappy and this can dehumanize people that have multiple identities. Instead
of focusing on what we have in common with these people we focus on what’s
different and that creates separation. Mary Mostafanzed refers to this as the
‘humanitarian gaze’ to further explain how some “humanitarians” come into a
specific country with the belief that they already know the people and culture.
Not only is this false but it creates a binary between the giver and receiver.
Humanitarianism as a means of self promotion
According to Andrew Hernan who describes his experience doing
humanitarian work in Kenya, many of the charities he encountered were more
concerned with their own objectives, reputations and experiences than they were
with helping empower communities and addressing the sources of poverty. This is
shown in both the micro and macro level of society.
On the micro level:
There have been so many positive aspects to social media such as the ability to communicate around the world however social media has also allowed us to build our online presence in accordance to how we want to be viewed and this may not reflect the reality of a situation. The picture bellow represents one of the ways the western world (specifically youth) is more interested in their self image through social media then the actual cause. Humanitarianism has increasingly become a way for people to uphold their presence as well rounded human beings. One reason for this according to Mostafanzed is that we want to model what celebrities are doing.
On the macro level:
Western countries today
have the political agenda of giving back to the international community by
helping modernize countries that may seem less advanced than western counter
parts. Similarly to this, during the 1860’s European countries used
postcards to focus effort on colonization and how it was benefiting the
colonized.
The first image is a postcard created by the fascist Italy to justify
colonialism and the invasion in Ethiopia. The second image is a photograph
showing the US military doing good by providing children with drinking water.
Although the first image is highly racist and the second image could very well
be a genuine act of humanitarianism, both images are using charity as
propaganda to promote an image. However, these images don’t allow you to see
the context behind what is happening.
An example of the way more powerful and developed countries assert their
power through humanitarianism would be Russia's involvement in the Syrian war.
When asked for support, Moscow sent troops immediately to get the situation
under control, which sparked a lot of theories regarding the intentions behind
their actions. The most obvious reason for Russia's involvement is the
opportunity to reassert its power in the Middle East. Syria used to be on USSR's side during the Cold War, but
later on their relationship was lost due to the close partnership with the US.
Therefore, this situation is a chance for the alliance to be restored.
Furthermore, it seems that the fight became more concentrated on the US and
Russia rather than on restoring peace. Russia wants the previous order to be
restored, as opposed to the US’s motives which are shifted more towards helping
the rebels take down the current leader. In this example we see the ulterior
motives of countries that are masked in humanitarian aid to fulfill their own
desires.
Forgotten Systematic Poverty:
Although
many times we are told that communities are impoverished because
of cultural or
naturally inherent reasons, we ignore the economic and political
structures
that
limit their upward mobility. We tend to forget that many of the
countries that we
see
as needs of European powers. Today large corporations rely on cheap
labor and land for their economic advancement, therefore it is not in
their best interest for countries receiving aid to climb out of
poverty. Moreover, corrupt leaders/presidents that may be pocketing the
aid received by foreign counterparts get away with it as long the corporations economic
stay intact. “Governments don’t like cutting their
ties to dictators who open doors for international business, or help their
geopolitical agendas” Lastly, we tend to forget
that humanitarianism as a practice has become such a large enterprise
that it relies on global inequality. Without it there would be
no need for humanitarianism.
How Humanitarian Is Not Neocolonial
Countries
often lend support to other countries without the conditions of being in political
or economic control of said aided countries. Humanitarianism, although
not always, is done with genuine intentions of helping the country that
has been affected by tragedy, whether it be war, financial collapses
or natural disasters. Below are just few examples of times when
countries provided aid to one another simply to help the country
through whatever troubles it was in at the time:
Natural Disaster Relief Efforts:
· After the Indian
Ocean Tsunami in 2004 devastated the Asian Pacific, 18 countries along with 4
international organizations donated money for their relief efforts. The
Indian Ocean Tsunami affected 13 countries, is estimated to have left more
than 230,000 dead and 2,000,000 homeless. The aid received went towards
repairs, food, supplies, and medical necessities, etc.
After Japan’s earthquake
and Tsunami in 2011, 91 countries along with 9
international organizations donated money for their
relief efforts. The death toll reached around 19,000. The
money donated went towards repairs, food, supplies, medicine, rescue and relief
teams, etc.
War Efforts:
· Due to the
Syrian Civil War conflict, many Syrians were displaced from their homes due to
either war damages or fleeing for their safety. Many countries considered Syria
in a state of humanitarian crisis and have stepped up to be of assistance. Back
in June 2012, Bulgaria sent around 6,000 troops, along with a sum of 100,000
BGN’s (55,630 USD). Another 30,000 BGN’s were sent for refugees. In 2014, the United States pledged
nearly $500 million in humanitarian aid for the victims. As of February 2016, the UN World Food
Programme will again begin to provide food assistance to Syrians after raising
a record pledge of $675 million.
· Due to the
Israeli-Palestine conflict, many Palestines were also displaced from their
homes due to war damages or out of fear for their lives. Countries around the world donated
millions to aid the Palestinian territories ravaged by war and in desperate
need of supplies.
Economic Help:
Bulgaria, one of the European Union’s poorest nations with half the
monthly wage of neighboring Greece, was ready to provide humanitarian aid even
if it meant cutting social spending at home. While Greece struggled in 2013 to
pull together a detailed economic package to convince its creditors it can keep
the common currency, EU leaders were trying to come up with different
solutions. “In case the Greeks need help, we’ll always support them by
providing food and medicine” Prime Minister Boyko Borrissov said in a phone
interview in Sofia. He added, “That money could be used for domestic or social
policy or education instead, but we’ll still do it”. In the duration of 5 days,
food, supplies, medical necessities, clothes and fuel were sent.
Bulgaria, itself, receives economic help from the municipality of Japan. In Bulgaria, one of the major economic problems is unemployment. The rate of unemployment has grown with 13.9% since 2005. At least 1 person becomes unemployed daily. With the support of Japan, new workplaces are attempted to be open and created, while collaborating with the Prime Minister, or to provide financial support to the Economic Center that pays the unemployed. The European Union also serves as a form of support for Bulgaria; Japan serves as enough economic shoulder to lean on and prevent an economic crisis as Bulgaria is still paying off its loans to the Union.
Humanitarianism
is possibly more benevolent and effective when it’s purpose is to aid countries
in their relief efforts after facing tragedies rather than in aiding in the
country’s overall “development”. When international intervention is solely
financial support that allows the country to use the money towards repairs and
to their own discretion, the country itself holds sovereignty. When
international intervention goes as far to try and help develop these countries’
own governments, it allows them to get too heavily involved in their own
politics,and that is ultimately when humanitarianism begins to take on a
neocolonial form because the influence of the “supporting” country has become
too great.
Sources:
So, do YOU think humanitarianism is a form of neocolonialism?
Why or Why not?
No comments:
Post a Comment