![]() ![]() Thus, the overriding question that we need to pose is whether it is morally acceptable to remain neutral when faced with genocide or grave violations of human rights. Humanitarian action is more than a technical exercise aimed at nourishing a population that is defined as ‘in need’, but is a moral endeavour based on solidarity with other members of humanity. The idea that neutrality can blind humanitarians to right and wrong is not a new one. There have been calls for humanitarians to actively support their efforts, arguing (and not without cause) that without democracy, civil society cannot truly exist. Second, is the rise of non-violent resistance movements to repressive regimes in a number of countries – such as Hong Kong in 2019, Belarus in 2020, and Myanmar presently. Many are saying that neutrality should be redefined or dropped altogether, as it privileges foreigners over community members and allows humanitarian agencies to assist the victims of oppression, in perpetuity, without ever having to challenge or undo that oppression. Neutrality is being called into question yet again by recent events.įirst, the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020 sparked a movement for change against structural racism within humanitarianism. It’s not too hard to see why – who would want to stay ‘neutral’ in a struggle between injustice and justice? Between dictatorship and democracy? Between racism and anti-racism? Neutrality is one of the four fundamental humanitarian principles, but remains deeply contested among humanitarians. View all Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) Minimum Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response and Recovery ![]() Minimum Standards for Child Protection in Emergencies Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse View all Conflict, security and armed groups View all Community engagement and accountability
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |