HUMANITARIAN DIPLOMACY: The Craft and Art

Humanitarian crises captivate the public’s attention. Images on television and in newspapers depict civilians fleeing violence or the devastating and indiscriminate impact of natural disasters, as well as the life-saving interventions of health professionals. An estimated 250,000 humanitarian workers are involved in these operations, many of which take place in dangerous locations such as Ukraine, Syria/Iraq, South Sudan, the Central African Republic [CAR], and Eastern Congo.

We need to look more closely at the role of humanitarian workers in negotiating access and other humanitarian issues with combatants and other actors in conflict zones. There is some truth to the assertion that negotiations pursuing humanitarian goals must necessarily differ from purely political deals resulting from traditional negotiation processes. Humanitarian principles must, once again, set the agenda for humanitarian actors’ negotiations. As a result, it is critical that those working in the international field recognize and respect their humanitarian colleagues.

Humanitarian Diplomacy Defined

Humanitarian diplomacy is effective in persuading decision-makers and opinion leaders to act in the best interests of vulnerable people and in accordance with fundamental humanitarian principles at all times. Humanitarian diplomacy seeks to mobilize public and governmental support and resources for humanitarian operations and programs, as well as to facilitate effective partnerships for meeting vulnerable people’s needs. Advocacy, negotiation, communication, formal agreements, and other measures are all part of humanitarian diplomacy. It is a crowded field with many players, including governments, international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector, and individuals.

Health diplomacy as an aspect in humanitarian diplomacy

Humanitarian action, including health assistance, is characterized by a variety of diplomacy levels. Global norms and international humanitarian law govern international humanitarian action, which includes principles outlined in United Nations General Assembly Resolutions, agreements reached in multilateral forums such as the Inter-Agency Standing Committee, and the Geneva Conventions, which govern humanitarian action in war-torn countries. The rapid growth in the number of humanitarian actors working for or with governments at all levels, often in complex situations, has increased the importance of humanitarian diplomacy.

During humanitarian operations, a variety of people engage in health diplomacy at various levels. Negotiations determine the amount of assistance, how that assistance is delivered, who is involved in delivering it, and how to reach crisis-affected populations. This diplomacy occurs in multilateral, bilateral, and local settings, and it involves both state and non-state actors. Diplomacy plays a role at the global level in determining resource allocation and scale, as well as technical standards for health interventions. Negotiations at the local level determine how assistance is coordinated, the extent to which technical standards and international humanitarian law are followed, military engagement, and the role of national governments and other national stakeholders.

Approaches of Diplomacy in Humanitarian Aid.

Diplomacy is a specialized function performed by a specific group of people. The duties and obligations of official diplomats, as well as their performance of their duties, are clearly defined by international law and custom. Behind humanitarian officials’ discomfort with the term diplomacy is the fact that diplomacy entails regular interactions with host political officials, whether state or non-state actors. Whereas diplomats’ portfolios are overwhelmingly political, humanitarian organizations strive to establish and maintain their non-political credentials.

Diplomats in a given crisis-affected country form a “community.” They collaborate on issues of mutual interest to their respective governments, which were previously political and military in nature but are now increasingly economic and, in some cases, humanitarian in nature. Humanitarian diplomacy, on the other hand, is not framed by such a well-established regime. To be sure, international humanitarian, human rights, and refugee law provide a framework for governments to agree on. In recent years, significant progress has been made in clarifying and compelling such obligations, particularly in the areas of human rights and internally displaced persons.

International Committee of the Red Cross concept of Humanitarian  Diplomacy

For example, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has developed its own definition of humanitarian diplomacy to reflect its specific mandate. Meanwhile, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) has had a new division dedicated to promoting humanitarian diplomacy since 2010. The ICRC’s access diplomacy is based on a continuous process of negotiation to establish its presence in these areas, stay close to the affected people and communities, and seek the consent of the relevant parties to allow humanitarian operations to take place. Principled humanitarian action and diplomacy are concerned with preserving this neutral, impartial, and independent space: an embodiment of our shared humanity that endures even in the most difficult circumstances of tomorrow’s armed conflicts and natural disasters.

CASE STUDY

IRAQ

Humanitarian diplomacy helped non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Iraq overcome operational constraints caused by limited humanitarian space. The Coalition 108 occupation and rule in Iraq; the resulting insecurity in the country; the humanitarian impact of the war; and the role of the various humanitarian actors present before and after the war were the four contextual factors that determined international NGOs’ efforts at humanitarian diplomacy in Iraq after the second Gulf War. The post-war humanitarian situation in Iraq must be understood in light of Saddam Hussein’s government’s years of punishing economic sanctions and domestic repression.The effects of the war, as well as the subsequent destabilization of the country after the occupation was established, exacerbated the problem. Following the war, the number of actors involved in humanitarian assistance and reconstruction increased dramatically. Over 100 international NGOs and UN agencies had prepared to respond to what was expected to be a major humanitarian disaster. A small group of NGOs formed the NGO Coordination Committee in Iraq (NCCI) in April 2003 in response to growing concerns about preserving humanitarian space and ensuring the neutrality, impartiality, and operational independence of humanitarian activity within the framework of the occupation. The NCCI’s humanitarian diplomacy alternated between two levels: seeking concrete, case-by-case solutions to NGOs’ main operational constraints, and pursuing a more process-oriented engagement with various players for broader, more sustainable, and more principled goals.

SUDAN

There were large-scale interventions by the World Food Programme and the role of humanitarian diplomacy in the pursuit of operational humanitarian objectives in Sudan, which had an impact on operational issues. First, humanitarian diplomacy operates in an environment characterized by multiple or ambiguous political objectives. In Sudan, the government’s other priorities determined the priority given to humanitarian work, and the exigencies of the civil war took precedence over humanitarian concerns. Given the operational constraints, negotiating for humanitarian space is a never-ending struggle. It will be argued here that humanitarian diplomacy can be viewed as a type of policy implementation activity carried out in an adverse political and physical environment.

WFP and its sister UN aid agencies conduct humanitarian diplomacy in the absence of the ultimate sanction of force. Similarly, the promise of free assistance does not guarantee an unconditional welcome. Negotiations are necessary at all stages of a humanitarian operation, but not all of them are diplomatic in nature.

Conclusion

 To ensure that humanitarian practitioners’ voices are heard in global humanitarian decision-making, these practitioners must learn how to engage in and influence diplomatic processes at both the global and local levels. Training in negotiation and advocacy is required to influence multilateral organizations’ decision-making among donor and recipient states, as well as among local communities. Humanitarian diplomacy is a new concept. Its definition differs from that of traditional diplomacy, which seeks to manage states’ international relations through negotiation. Instead, humanitarian diplomacy focuses on “maximizing support for operations and programs, and building the partnerships required to achieve humanitarian objectives.

VIP SPECIAL EDITION

ADVERTISE YOUR COMPANY INTERNATIONALLY IN OUR MAGAZINE GLOBAL MINDSET

PROTOCOLTODAY ACADEMY OF PROTOCOL & SOFT DIPLOMACY