World Humanitarian Summit 2016: How to better engage peacebuilders and humanitarians

In preparation for the World Humanitarian Summit(this link will open in a new window) (WHS) in Istanbul in May, Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon released his vision(this link will open in a new window) for tackling major global challenges.

The report, titled One Humanity, Shared Responsibility puts forward an ’Agenda for Humanity’ posited around five key central responsibilities:

1. Global leadership to prevent and end conflict;
2. Uphold norms that safeguard humanity;
3. Leave no one behind;
4. Change people’s lives – from delivering aid to ending need;
5. Invest in humanity.

Some may accuse these of being lofty ideals, but the agenda is really about re-thinking how humanitarian assistance should be delivered in the wake of some of today’s greatest challenges.

For example, in 2015 alone, 125 million people required humanitarian assistance worth $20 billion, with 60 million being forced from their homes (and most expecting to be displaced for an average of 17 years).

In the last decade, most humanitarian crises have taken place in conflict situations, as highlighted by the Secretary General in his call for political leadership to solve conflict.

In most cases, conflict means that access and delivery of protection and assistance carry greater risks, and thus require more complex navigation, difficult choices, compromises and pragmatism when it comes to adhering to core humanitarian principles.

In places such as Syria, South Sudan and Central African Republic (CAR), respect for the protection of civilians from harm is increasingly becoming jeopardised by pragmatism, if not realpolitik. Experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has changed traditional humanitarian operations and in particular, the ‘stabilisation’ agenda that many donors have inadvertently pursued, and has altered perceptions on politicising or securitising humanitarian operations.

In addition, the impact of many counter-terrorism legislations such as that implemented by the US, means that humanitarian agencies (both local and international, especially faith-based organisations) are banned from direct engagement with organisations and groups linked to listed terror groups (such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Shabab, etc.).

Similarly, cash transfers programmes either through diaspora remittances (e.g. Dahabshill in Somalia) or from international aid agencies in conflict zones where there are terror groups continue to be restricted or banned.

This does has implications for neutrality, independence and impartiality especially if engagement with such groups enables access to potential beneficiaries in need of help. For example, international aid agencies have faced challenges in engaging with local relief actors (NGOs and local businesses) operating in Al-Shabab controlled areas of Somalia over fears those actors directly or indirectly, through payment of Islamic Zakat taxes for instance, sustain Al-Shabab’s control. The same issues were present during the conflict in Sri Lanka, for those working in areas controlled by The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

In its submissions to the Summit in Istanbul, Alert recognises these challenges as well as the impact that humanitarian assistance could have on conflict.

We argue that whilst many humanitarian actors are not peace actors and do not have the skills to build peace, they could reinforce the role of peace actors and contribute to peace. Hence, there is a need for greater engagement between the peacebuilding and humanitarian communities. This engagement should go beyond just avoiding immediate harm but also towards building resilience to conflict.

After all, humanitarian action and peacebuilding are not entirely binary concepts – one being neutral, the other – political.

In fact, neutrality and impartiality are often central to peacebuilding. Without an inclusive dialogue that engages all relevant parties, it is not possible to effectively address the underlying drivers of conflict. Independence is another essential characteristic for peacebuilding actors that underpins the trust of parties involved. While the spotlight often falls on multilaterals or sovereign states, it is less widely known that non-government organisations often play a central role as intermediaries where engagement by sovereign states presents challenges for conflict resolution.

The difference, though, lies in how principles are constructed. Humanitarians strive to maintain a public image of neutrality, impartiality and independence at all times, whereas this may vary for peacebuilders depending on the intervention and context. In reality though, the degree of neutrality, impartiality and independence can vary for both peacebuilders and humanitarians.

Independence, neutrality and impartiality are subjective. It is possible for an organisation to behave in a way that it is completely neutral, but still be perceived as partial depending on identity, allegiance, culture and beliefs. ‘If you give aid to my enemy you are supporting the other side’ is a common view.

In Afghanistan in particular, humanitarian intervention was seen as ‘one-sided,’ since the humanitarian community did not negotiate access with the other side, nor openly advocate for the respect of humanitarian principles by all parties to the conflict.

However, humanitarian assistance provided by the international community will often be seen as supporting one side, depending on political allegiances and funding. In response to disasters caused by natural hazards where on-going conflicts exist, humanitarian action can be politicised.

By understanding how our interventions impact others we can anticipate and respond to perceptions, avoid unintended repercussions and therefore reinforce humanitarian principles.

If we do not strive to understand how politics intersects with our assistance, we can undermine the principles we are trying to uphold. Shared conflict sensitivity processes can therefore assist both humanitarians and peacebuilders in their work.

Certainly, all this requires commitment and consensus from not only donors, but agencies from both sides of the spectrum.

There is a need for a more embedded and cohesive approach to conflict sensitivity within humanitarian policy frameworks. There is also a need for a paradigm shift. Conflict analysis must become a standardised practice that not only reinforces the ‘do no harm’ principle during operations, but identifies opportunities for peace between two sides whilst building community resilience to conflict.

Connecting humanitarianism and peacebuilding in practice is not something that is just desirable but essential for improving the effectiveness of humanitarian operations, the promotion of humanitarian principles and the common goals of humanitarian and peacebuilding organisations.

Due to the often urgent nature of humanitarian interventions and protracted chronic crises, a solid institutional framework for conflict sensitivity at all stages of intervention must be established in order respond rapidly to changing circumstances.

We must also change organisational culture, increase capacity, get policy and funding settings right and test and analyse what works.

Peacebuilders, through various measures, must also take responsibility for making the partnership work. They need to have a better understanding of how humanitarians operate, and the systems and constraints they work under, in order to understand how to support their integration of peacebuilding and conflict sensitivity. We must capitalise on new opportunities and trends within the humanitarian sector.

Ultimately, both humanitarians and peacebuilders need to acknowledge and commit to changing their approaches. This will help to unlock the potential to contribute more explicitly to positive peace – to ‘build back better for peace’.

For this to happen though, we need leadership from all parties, as stated in the starting premise of the ‘Agenda for Humanity’. Investing in stability and resilience will mean incorporating peace before, during and after humanitarian operations.

• Read International Alert’s submission to the World Humanitarian Summit, Meeting the needs of people in conflict: Promoting peace while saving lives(this link will open in a new window)

This originally appeared here

What Can We Learn From the 'World Interfaith Harmony Week'?

Last week, the first week of February was traditionally the 'World Interfaith Harmony Week' as designated by the United Nations to occur annually in the first full week of February. This week was seen as a chance for the global community to promote harmony between all people and to establish a dialogue amongst the different faiths and religions in an attempt to enhance mutual understanding, harmony and cooperation.

Given the very bloody start to 2016, now more than ever is there a need for such spaces to pause and reflect on how to create a new environment for the promotion of Inter-Religious and Inter-Cultural Dialogue, Understanding and Cooperation for Peace. The incidents around the world whether it is the violence in the Middle East, the anti immigrant feelings in Europe, the rise of racist nationalism in Asia, or the xenophobic rhetoric stemming out the of the US presidential election campaigns, all emphasize the need to build societies that are shared by everyone. These 'shared' societies are uniquely imagined as places where a durable peace is maintained through values of compassion and solidarity and by encouraging the promotion of dialogue amongst the different forums available in all cultures.

This is of course the idealistic aspiration behind the Harmony week but with a realistic recognition that it requires real work from all stakeholders that constitute society as a whole. In other words, it is not the purview or responsibility of one component. It needs commitment to an understanding of the driving contexts and causes for conflict, and also of the real tangible aspects for peace. This lofty goal can be challenging to understand. After all what do we mean by peace? For me, the closest definition for this term is that 'Peace is possible when people can live in safety, have fair and effective laws, participate in shaping political decisions, make a decent living and secure their wellbeing'. The question then becomes how do we arrive at this possibility? From the perspective of the Interfaith Harmony Week, how can such a culture of peace be developed?

Simply put, there needs to be real and fruitful conversations that involve talking to people and understanding how to address the misperceptions that exist about the 'other' within all of us. We have to have honest and open discussions about faith and its role in society and what exists within the faiths of mutual co-existence. This centers around common values which espouse the notion of a shared humanity; social responsibility; social justice and ethics

In essence, we will have to rediscover a spirituality of commonality which will allow us to recognise the common space and substance amongst all doctrines that will provide the fuel for social change and trigger action for the unity of humanity. This shared language will enable us to develop a set of ideals that continue to stir our collective conscience; a common set of values that bind us together despite our differences; a running thread of hope that makes this improbable experiment of reconciling and rehabilitation of vulnerable communities possible. These values and ideals will have to be living, which cannot find expression on paper or monuments or in the annals of history books, but which remain alive in the hearts and minds of people inspiring us to pride, duty and sacrifice. These living values will have to help us to build on shared understandings and should be the glue that binds every healthy society. However whilst dialogues are a beginning it is important that engagement goes beyond this. Interfaith (and increasingly intra-faith) dialogue has to produce something tangible for communities on the front line

We are now living at a time where increasingly across the world, political violence flavoured by faith, culture and identity is being used to justify positions of identity and power. This often leads to misconceptions and misperceptions about certain faiths and its followers. The tragedy will be if we lose this battle. Faith identities will continue to be part of the picture and faith will continue to be a strong rallying point for global communities. We as people of faith and spirituality have to retake the reins and change the paradigm.

The week offers us an opportunity to do so. Yet outside certain circles it is not known or widely practiced even by the UN itself. There are of course doubts as to the integrity of the week given the Saudi Arabia (not one known for its pluralistic appreciation of inter and intra faith dialogue) was one of the initial sponsors. It also skirts around much needed intra-faith dialogue as well. Nevertheless, the space has been created and it is now up to those to make use of it. We have to address the challenges and the polarization that is tearing apart the fabric of the global society. This will never be easy, but remains vitally important. This week offers some opportunity for this

This originally appeared on Huffington Post