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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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, 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