A 20-Year Reflection

It’s that time of year when I experience my annual “George Bailey” moment — a meaningful period for reflection and gratitude. This year is particularly special as I celebrate 20 years of my humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding journey. While some may hesitate to celebrate personal achievements in the wake of tragedy, I view the 2004 tsunami as a pivotal moment that reshaped my life — just as it did for countless others. This catastrophic event acted as a powerful catalyst, propelling me away from a conventional career in civil engineering that I had pursued since graduating from university in 2000.

After the devastating loss of five family members to the tsunami, I made a bold and transformative decision. I left behind everything I knew: I packed my belongings, rented out my house, and bravely returned to Sri Lanka — a country I had known only through summer vacations — as a volunteer to help the community. More than just a homecoming, this was a bold step into a new chapter filled with opportunity and purpose.

I was tasked with establishing the Muslim Aid Sri Lanka field office from the ground up. This role demanded strategic vision and leadership in hiring new staff and creating operational systems to meet the urgent needs in the aftermath of the disaster. Starting in 2006, as the civil conflict in Sri Lanka reignited, my focus evolved towards conflict resolution and peacebuilding. This shift allowed me to channel my energy into initiatives that fostered collaboration and dialogue among diverse groups, bridging gaps in a deeply divided society.

Over the past twenty years, I have transitioned through various roles, working with a think tank, engaging with a peacebuilding organisation, and providing consultancy to many entities, including the United Nations. Today, I am honoured to be part of the world’s largest and oldest humanitarian network.

Throughout my journey, I have faced challenges, each bringing opportunities. Many, including parts of my family, initially struggled to comprehend my choice to move away from a lucrative engineering career into the nonprofit sector. It was not typical in the early noughties for a young South Asian man graduating from one of the top Engineering universities in the UK to move from the coveted role of engineer with a prestigious engineering company to a humanitarian worker working with a faith-based NGO. People didn’t fully grasp the significance of humanitarian work. Some accused me of being in trouble and escaping and running away. Others thought I was having a mid-life crisis (at 26!!). While some may not fully understand where I work or what I do, I stand firm in my conviction that making that shift in 2004 was one of my life's best decisions.

Nevertheless, I have navigated and continue to navigate challenges, especially self-doubt and imposter syndrome. Being a natural introvert, it is often hard to make oneself heard in a world of jargon and goodwill, and people feel self-important because of the latter. In an ecosystem struggling to articulate a decolonised approach, trying to buck the trend is challenging, as people ‘question’ your abilities or experience or, worse still, your colour (and faith) can be limiting. It is even more challenging when I see peers excelling in their careers and receiving accolades for achievements after spending decades perfecting their singular crafts whilst I have moved around here and there. It can be easy to feel overshadowed.

I consistently ask myself critical questions about my impact and whether my presence makes a difference. I constantly question as to whether I made the right choice in 2004.

These questions have become louder recently, especially over the last 18 months. I have witnessed global inaction regarding protecting innocent lives. This is a challenging reality. It is easy to succumb to despair, and it isn't easy to overcome it. Yet, it is one’s responsibility to do so. You must believe that every contribution counts, focusing on the lives you touch and the positive change you can help create.

I draw strength from the people I serve and collaborate with every day. I cherish the smiles that emerge when your interventions meet their basic needs, whether providing food, shelter, or emotional support. I am inspired by the resilience of those who lose everything yet stand firm in hope and with a smile. The unwavering spirit of individuals who dedicate their time and resources to help others energises me and reinforces my purpose. I find profound joy in the prayers of gratitude of those in need, knowing their voices are heard.

Being paid to do this work is an incredible honour and privilege. Muhammad Ali famously said, “Service is the rent you pay for a room on this earth,” I wholeheartedly embrace this philosophy. Along with the Qur’anic injunction that “if you save the life of one person, it would be as if you have saved the whole of humanity” (5:32), these statements have motivated my sustained commitment to this field for the past two decades.

Throughout my career, I have had the honour of traveling to numerous countries and immersing myself in diverse cultures and traditions. I have engaged with remarkable individuals, from heads of state and royalty to activists, writers, and everyday people. This experience has reinforced a powerful truth: at our core, we all share a common desire to improve our lives and the lives of our families. We all value our loved ones, and we naturally have fears about what we do not understand and who we do not know.

When we humanise one another and break down barriers, we uncover the reality that the “other” is navigating life the same way we are — step by step. This recognition represents a crucial breakthrough that fosters respect, acceptance and understanding. I firmly believe that authentic dialogue is essential for promoting trust and respect. While we may not always agree, we can create a safe and courageous space for open communication and learning.

There is strength in difference. Diversity is a fact; Inclusion is an act, and Belonging is an outcome. As we confront the complexities of our interconnected world, we must acknowledge that we cannot simply avoid one another. We are responsible for coexisting, supporting each other, and honouring our shared humanity. We must do more to ensure belonging and inclusion, but this does not mean acquiescence or compromise.

I’ve understood that personal and professional lives are intricately intertwined and embedded. There is no separation or professional/personal life balance. There is just life balance. Achieving a balance in life comes from what you make of it; you are judged for all you have done and how you have treated people in all aspects of life. How you show up in one part of life depends on other parts. Suppose you have had a bad day at home; this can happen at work and vice versa. You need to show up 100% in whatever you do, and that means that things are not in silos but connected. I have learnt that on your deathbed, the most important thing is about the people you touch, the relationships you build, the experiences you have, the kindness you display and the compassion you have in dealing with things.

Life (careers, personal, family) is like a mango tree. It must develop deep roots in the ground to ensure proper nutrients and a solid foundation, spreading the networks wide and getting influences from all over. A solid trunk is needed to act as an appropriate support to hold the weight of all the expectations. That trunk grows with time but needs the roots to feed it. The foliage and the branches spread far and wide, providing opportunities for sun and rain. The branches and leaves provide much-needed shelter, cover and comfort for those seeking it, especially during rain or extreme sun. The branches offer opportunities to climb to pick the fruit, yet you never climb vertically. To get to the top of the mango tree, you need to move up, come down or move sideways. This is what life is. Getting ahead in life is never a straight climb up a ladder. Lastly, like a mango tree, you must return fruit when a stone is thrown at it.

I am incredibly privileged to be working in a social movement alongside 17 million other people who passionately and sincerely believe in promoting human dignity for all, preventing and alleviating human suffering wherever it may be found, and not discriminating as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions using the tools of neutrality (to take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature) and independence through voluntary service, unity and universality. While these Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement have been sorely tested and challenged, they remain essential as a north star and compass to navigate these difficult times. It is an honour to be part of the work of these individuals and others who conform daily to the code of conduct.

When I look back at the last 20 years, I can only ponder that it is through God’s grace that I have climbed the mango tree in the way I have. I am grateful to God for the opportunities and challenges (that have helped me grow) that have come my way. Without His Mercy, Guidance and Comfort (especially during some of the darkest times), I would not have made it through. I am grateful to my family and friends who are too numerous to cite by name, who have and continue to support me. Special shout out to my wife and son for their patience and support during these times, especially when I am away from home (supporting other families instead of mine). I am grateful to the guidance and mentorship of my late father (may God be pleased with him), on whose shoulders I stand, trying to push forward a vision of making the world a better place. I am grateful for the ongoing support and mentorship from my dear sister, Dr Jemilah Mahmood, who continues to support, inspire, and guide me. Is there any time I need to seek advice? I am also thankful for my spiritual guru, Rev Ebenezer Joseph, who routinely helps me appreciate and understand the role of faith in our work and helps me know that you can still do interfaith work without compromise. All that is needed is trust-building, dialogue and patience. He routinely reminds me of the need to pause and listen.

As I continue my journey, I remain confidently committed to making a meaningful impact in the lives of those I come across — hoping that my work matters and that every small change contributes to a greater collective good. I am unsure where the next 20 years will take me, if I will be alive in the next 20 years, or whether the next branch of life I will climb will be like the last.

I am at a crossroads as I now ponder my legacy and what I want to leave my son and the world. I don’t know if the next 20 years will be focused on more humanitarian, peacebuilding or development work or something completely different. There are hopes and aspirations for what might be, but what will be is something for the future. I pray that whatever I do or wherever I go if I can help make the world slightly better than when I found it, this will be done my way.

This initially appeared here: 

Decolonising the Humanitarian and Development Sector needs a reckoning.

 

Over the last one year, as a result of the horrific murder of George Floyd and the subsequent global Black Lives Matter protests, the humanitarian and development sector has also paused to reflect on the ugly truth that there is still not a level playing field in the world we live in, and that power and privilege has as much to do with wealth and nationality as it has to do with the colour of one’s skin.  

Yet whilst there have been attempts by the sector to address this from the more tokenistic to more deep rooted organizational cultural change perspectives, there has been one topic which seems to be not high on the agenda and that is a change in the whole system in place that the sector subscribes to, live in and work with, which  are oppressive to people who are Black, Indigenous or a Person of Colour (BIPOC) and from what is called the Global South, itself a disputed term. Anecdotes recorded from the humanitarian and development sector point out that there are overt experiences of racial discrimination, everyday micro-aggressions and unsafe workplace cultures.  There are stories about how the dominant policies, practices and cultures have marginalised people of colour and minorities.  

Whilst there has been much made of the ‘localisation’ agenda, pushing for  more agency from local actors, to become primary implementers and decision makers, there has been little open discussion of the ways, the power system and the heritage of the humanitarian aid, development and peacebuilding sector that impact the modern-day approach to projects and local actors.  Thus much is focused on reforming the process to get support to local partners within the existing framework without interrogating whether the system itself needs a significant rehaul from its conceptual basis.  

To focus on the existing system is to disregard the the lingering remnants of colonialism visible in aid flows, through humanitarian systems shaped exclusively by Western / Christian values, seeking to change the social, political and economic structures of countries in the Global South with little input from affected communities.  For many multilateral and international organisations, it has been convenient to focus on discussions of racism and discriminations as opposed to looking at the deeper systemic problem of asymmetric power that comes for a pedagogy that the brown and black subjects are not ready to take control of their destiny. To focus on tinkering within the existing system is to forget that the global aid industry is the grandchild of the colonial missionaries and is a result of the hangover of colonialism.  This colonial legacy has been reformed in the systems and structures that ‘civilising missions’ and humanitarian agencies from the colonial powers still perpetuate.  Much of contemporary laws, policies and actions instituted in and by humanitarian and development organisations often re-enforce the colonial power dynamics of people and institutions from the global North systemically oppressing and exercising domination over those from the global South.  It is these legacies influencing humanitarian assistance and development activities that affected people often feel that the services provided for them are not programmed with them, with their input and according to their needs.  It is these legacies that influence how affected people are treated and described essentialising a level of dependency and a lack of agency to them: ‘vulnerable’, ‘powerless’, ‘helpless’, ‘disempowered’, or ‘victim’.  

Thus we have to change the paradigm of the conversation.  We have to start from the decolonial perspective.  However,r to start with that, it is important to note that the co-option of racism, diversity and inclusion, social justice and social good, does not equate with a conversation on decolonization.  We need to understand the narrative of decolonisation, colonial, localisation and the intersection with diversity, equality, and inclusion.  Yet they are not the same!  Decolonisation debates did not start in 2020 but started when people in the global south began organising to counter the ideologies of the oppressors who sought to enforce power and seize land.  It is about coming up a with a new ‘paradigm’ of thinking and approach that interrogates the localisation agenda, provides agency to the ‘local’, that has a pedagogy of liberation and freedom that works in partnership with the affected community.   It is about disrupting the system and upending the structure according to and with local voices, cultures and traditions.  It is about taking the risk and having the right actors at the table, to hear their voices.  This is where the thinking and  discussion on decolonisation within the humanitarian and development sector  has to start and be explored.

Crucial to this conversation within the humanitarian sector is the need to decolonise Eurocentric knowledge systems and their role in challenging the enduring effects of colonialism and power (and racism).   Breaking the ‘white gaze’ in international development and humanitarian action involves questioning whose expertise we value, who we listen to, who holds the levers of power and who gets a vote. It also requires dismantling the ways we construct the communities we work in as “other”, i.e. places overseas with problems and needs, rather than places where solutions are generated and capabilities are in place. Most importantly, it involves transforming power structures so that those holding a seat of power start to look more like the communities where the work is taking place. We need to decolonize humanitarian and development aid by active engagement and leadership of people most affected by racism and colonialist attitudes in the debate towards future vision of humanitarianism.  We need to democratize humanitarianism by creating the fora and tools that allow the widest engagement of all humanitarian workers, mainly national staff in the project areas, in informing and guiding decisions.  We also need to realise the inherent complexities and contradictions of humanitarianism which also has at its centre showing solidarity with the other.  So a challenge remains in how we balance the two.

 

This is where there are opportunities provided by the coronavirus pandemic, where the lockdowns and restrictions of movement have exposed the fallacies of the current system and the unsustainability of the aid relationship.  It has provided a blueprint for true local, decolonised action where locals have agency and power to act according to their local challenges.  What is needed is the financial resources to back that up.  In providing that blueprint, a space can be provided for an

equity-based understanding of humanitarian action which advocates for ‘adapting humanitarian work to each individual’s needs and background [to ensure] those affected are being treated equitably’.   This means understanding that manifestations of oppression, such as racism, are rooted in power hierarchies that often do not operate alone. They intersect with gender, religion, socio-economic status, geography, sexual orientation, and numerous other social markers, creating layers of oppression that are inextricably intertwined. Thus, addressing one facet of inequity is not enough. Effective action requires an intersectional, operationally rooted approach to humanitarian action.

This is ultimately at the heart of a decolonized approach to disrupting the system of humanitarian and development aid.  We need to do better; we need to be better, not because it is the good thing to do, but the right thing to do, to treat people with dignity, respect and humanity.  This is our moral responsibility.

this originally appeared here on The Equal Group Website

Commonwealth Could Be Britain’s Post-Brexit Break

Taking on the leadership of the Commonwealth is a boost for the country embattled in precarious Brexit negotiations and trying to reimagine its place in the world.

In April, Britain hosted the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, which was billed as the largest gathering of heads of states in the UK for a long time. Taking on the leadership of the Commonwealth is a boost for the country embattled in precarious Brexit negotiations and trying to reimagine its place in the world.

The summit set the agenda for a sustainable future, hosting a civil society forum, as well as forums for women, youth and business — and the UK found its job tricky. As the summit started, the British government was faced with the prospect of an embarrassing apology and a U-turn over the treatment of the Windrush generation — immigrants from the Caribbean who came to rebuild Britain after the Second World War, many of whom recently faced deportation by the Home Office.

If the UK thought that it could breeze into the chairmanship of the Commonwealth, it misread the signs. Britain, mindful of its colonial history, should be careful in how it displays humility in taking up the leadership of the Commonwealth amidst the challenges the organization is facing. The Commonwealth, to some extent, remains a voluntary space for countries to opt into, where everyone from the small island state of Vanuatu to the big three — UK, Canada and Australia — are equal.

FACING CLIMATE CHANGE

One unique challenge for the Commonwealth will be climate change. Many of its members are small island states, and over the next few years they will face increasing humanitarian challenges as extreme weather events, like last year’s Hurricanes Irma and Maria, become more frequent. Leadership toward responding and making communities more resilient to climate change will need to be balanced with sustainable development.

Many countries within the Commonwealth are rapidly developing, meaning they will face the challenge of “people, cities and resources.” The world’s population passed the 1 billion mark in 1810, doubled in the next hundred years, and by 2010 hovered around 7 billion. The projection for 2030 is 9 billion. But the issue here is not pure numbers — it’s resources. When the global total reached 1 billion, just 3% — 30 million people — lived in cities. Today, the world is 50% urbanized, meaning that 3.5 billion people live in metropolitan areas.

While urbanization is by no means bad per se, it provides a different set of issues to contend with. The prospect of shadow economies, political violence coupled with the relentless drive for money and status, manifesting itself in gang violence, creates reasons for concern. Some of the urban violence coming out of Johannesburg and Nairobi showcases the challenge of rapid urbanization, while many of the small island states in the Caribbean or the Maldives struggle with gang violence, especially among the youth population.

In fact the World Health Organization’s Global status report on violence prevention 2014 shows that within low and middle income countries, the highest estimated rates of homicide occur in the Americas, with 28.5 homicides per 100,000 population, followed by Africa, at 10.9 homicides per 100,000, due to gang violence. The lowest estimated rate of homicide is in the low and middle income countries of the Western Pacific, with 2.1 homicides per 100,000. Where state institutions are weak, violence becomes cyclical and relentless, as criminal violence is traditionally met with the violence by law enforcement.

The Commonwealth is also not immune to the global migration crisis, which has seen the highest number of displaced people and refugees since the end of the Second World War. As the UNHCR reports, an unprecedented 65.6 million people around the world have been forced from home. Among them are nearly 22.5 million refugees, over half of whom are under the age of 18. These demographic changes are putting new stresses on how we engage with and exclude each other as societies across the world are seeing a backlash of racism and xenophobia.

BRIDGING THE GAPS

Yet the Commonwealth offers opportunities to bridge those gaps, given its shared history. The Civil Paths to Peace report by the Commonwealth Commission on Respect and Understanding suggested a framework for all stakeholders — government, media, civil society, business and so on — to explore the complexities around violent behavior and its causes, putting forward ways of building dialogue between communities in the Commonwealth.

The report addresses the narrowing space for civil society and asks for its mobilization to confront violence as well as engage in the process of democracy. It includes the removal of gross economic inequalities, social humiliations and political disenfranchisement that can contribute to generating confrontation and hostility. It calls, in effect, for an integrated approach to dealing with all economic, social and cultural issues that are related to conflict.

The report recognizes cultural and social factors, as well as features of political economy, are all important in understanding violence. It puts forward the premise that there is a need for greater respect and understanding of diversity, to counter disquiet, disaffection and violence: “If the cultivation of respect and understanding is both important in itself and consequential in reducing violence and terrorism in the world, the link between the two lies in the understanding the cultivated violence is generated through fomenting disrespect and fostering confrontational misunderstandings.”

The concept of developing respect and understanding is further cemented by the Nobel laureate, professor Amartya Sen, in his book, Identity and Violence, the premise of which states that the key to good citizenship and social cohesion is the encouragement and retention of multiple identities. People have several enriching identities: nationality, gender, age and parental background, religious or professional affiliation. They identify with different ethnic groups and races, towns or villages they call home, sometimes football teams; they speak different languages, which they hope their children will retain, and love different parts of their countries.

It is the recognition of this plurality and the searching for commonalities within this pluralism that will lead to greater respect and ultimately understanding and acceptance. Thus, these new solutions will have to challenge people to accept diversity and create equal opportunities for multicultural communities, ethnicities, traditions, cultures and faiths. The new solutions will also have to take into account the existence of multiple identities that add a richness and variety to diversity and pluralism as part of a common wealth that needs to be celebrated in the global civil society and integrated into life as a positive force for development.

NEW OPPORTUNITIES

Addressing this, the Commonwealth Commission argued for more dialogue and discussion on the richness of human identities and the counterproductive nature of placing people in rigidly separated identity boxes, linked with religion or community. At the 2007 Commonwealth People’s Forum in Kampala, Uganda, civil society leaders called for “the creation of an enabling environment to foster: unity in diversity, where there would be respectful and meaningful dialogue and collaboration between people with different identities and values; and practical grassroots action and community linking partnerships to build peace, prosperity and well-being for all Commonwealth Citizens.” This was very much in keeping with the Civil Paths to Peace mandate for an engaged process toward respect and understanding.

A decade later, the UK government has an opportunity to revisit these principles and create an environment to foster the knowledge and engagement needed for a sustainable future to be created. It must understand that there are lessons to be learned from, as well as provided to, the Commonwealth. It must first start by accepting that there has to be a space for different voices to be heard within the organization, be it the youth, women, the private sector or civil society. The latter in particular is an integral part of the Commonwealth DNA, providing not only dialogue, but also dissonance.

In an era of shrinking civil society space worldwide, Britain should champion the role of civil society globally, seeing it as a partner and not a service provider or instrument of foreign action. There is much to be done to reclaim the basic rights being lost in the clampdown on civic space or even the rights being lost in a digital world. Post Brexit, the UK has to battle the rising tide of populism to respond to the weakness of democracy and use this as an opportunity to reimagine what the Commonwealth can be: not just a club for former British colonies, but a vibrant space for innovation and thinking, with a youth dividend that is multicultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious, that can pave the way for what diverse societies could and should be — based around partnerships and sharing.

This originally appeared on Fair Observer

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

Understanding Conflict Dislacements

A phenomenal number of people have been displaced as a result of conflict. It is now estimated by the UN that almost 60 million plus people have been displaced, making it the highest since 1945 (World Humanitarian Summit). On top of this, it is now estimated that it will take about 17 years on average for people to be displaced, which means that the refugee crisis becomes prolonged putting a strain on humanitarian financing. Already this is beginning to show for example out of total $19.5bn pledged by the UN in 2014, less than 70% UN funding requirement were met last year, leaving $7.5bn in unmet funding gap.

Underlying some of the causes for current conflicts are some cross-cutting characteristics including: the rise of violent non-state actors and the prevalence of civil wars; deep socio-political and ethno-religious cleavages; huge levels of mistrust and intolerance; constantly changing alliances, loyalties and relationships; changing frontlines and territorial control; destruction of social infrastructures and services; and links to natural resources. In many cases where there has been a cessation of violence and hostilities, peace agreements and the accompanying international apparatus to support their implementation have suppressed the violence but not addressed the causes of conflict. Accordingly, the risk of a re-eruption remains. One of the best indicators of where there is risk of future violent conflict is simply identifying where there was violent conflict before.

Whilst politics, faith, identity and rights are often the foreground factors for any conflict (i.e. these are the issues that people fight for and against), it is important to pay attention to the long-term systemic issues that increase conflict. In a nutshell there are possibly three strategic issues that will affect long term conflict dynamics (International Alert 2015) :

1)The world's population passed the 1 billion mark in 1810, doubled in the next hundred years, and by 2010 was about 7 billion. The projection for 2030 is 9 billion. But the issue here is not pure numbers - it is resources. When the global total reached one billion, just 3% - 30 million people - lived in cities. Today the world is 50% urbanised - that is 3.5 billion people live in cities. Projections put the percentage in 2030 at between 60 and 70% - over 5 billion. Urbanisation per se is by no means bad. Cities have many problems, but their emergence and growth is strongly and directly associated with growing literacy, a deepening culture, increased cooperation and social mobilisation for progress on political rights. However, growing urbanisation is also associated with increased output: economically, urban concentration is much more efficiently productive than rural decentralisation, which means increased consumption of natural resources. In addition, growing urbanisation provides a different set of issues with regards conflict. The Global Status Report on violence prevention 2014 shows that within low- and middle income countries, the highest estimated rates of homicide occur in the Americas , followed by Africa . The lowest estimated rate of homicide is in the low- and middle income countries of the Western Pacific .

2) Extreme poverty is conventionally defined as living on less than US$1.25 a day (in 2005 prices). According to the World Bank, 1.22 billion people were living below that line in 2010, down from 1.9 billion in 1990 - a major improvement, especially since the world's total population increased in the meantime. But 2.6 billion people live on less than US$2 a day and a total of 3.5 billion - half the world's population - on less than US$3 a day. Thus, while natural resources are consumed in abundance, half the world has very little. The problem is not just economic inequality but the unequal opportunities and access to what should be common goods, such as education, health services, clean water and safety, which flow from the economic facts. Further, the problem is not just inequality in all its dimensions, but the fact that today's information and communications technologies make relative wealth, status and prestige highly visible to those at or near the bottom of the pile. This is where the seeds of resentment lie that create fertile grounds for conflict entrepreneurs of all kinds. Countries where inequality is sharpest are often countries where inequality both fuels and is fuelled by the root and branch corruption of the governing system. Inequality is not a natural accident; it is a system of wealth and privilege that has been constructed, and is actively defended.

3) The consequent changes in our natural environment as a result of climate change has social, economic and, in many places, political effects. It thus offers new challenges to human security. Climate change is bringing more slow-onset pressures such as droughts, shifts in the timing of the monsoon in parts of south and Southeast Asia, and hotter summers and wetter winters in temperate zones. There will also likely be an increasing frequency and severity of sudden shocks - the extreme weather events such as hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones. These will put pressure on four strategic systems that are essential for the way we live:
• water supply;
• food security;
• energy supply; and
• natural resource supply chains.

These systems are also under pressure from other human-impelled changes in nature, such as the loss of biodiversity and the effects of different kinds of pollution. These changes combine to create many unknowns in the natural environment; in the long-term, economic progress is pushing up against the planetary boundaries of sustainability. It is not that life will become impossible, though some habitats will become functionally uninhabitable. Rather, these four strategic systems will become more vulnerable, more costly and more complex with conflict as one of the consequences.

Thus addressing the long term displacement means we need serious movement to tackle these three phenomenon.

This originally appeared in Huffington Post

Understanding the role of ‘Zakat’ in humanitarian response

Zakat’ is the Muslim practice of charitable giving based on accumulated wealth. It is one of the five pillars of Islam and is obligatory for all Muslims who are able to do so. The past 30 years has seen a growing interest in humanitarian activity among Muslims as part of expressing their spiritual obligations of Zakat.

There is little to no information available on the use of Zakat in humanitarian response. However, estimates suggest that it could be significant in terms of both volume and potential impact upon humanitarian response.

The GHA Programme’s recent report Humanitarian assistance from non-state actors: What is it worth? briefly refers to Zakat as a potentially significant yet largely untapped source of funding for humanitarian assistance. Dr Jemilah Mahmood and Amjad Mohamed Saleem explore this issue further.

UNDERSTANDING CHARITY AND ZAKAT IN ISLAM

The recent report by the Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) Programme: Humanitarian Assistance from Non-State Actors: What is it Worth? makes interesting and pertinent reading, pointing to a paradigm shift in thinking around both humanitarian funding and programme delivery as new non-state actors have emerged as key players alongside traditional institutional actors. Here we explore the potential role of ‘Zakat’ in humanitarian assistance as a significant form of non-state humanitarian funding.

The concept of charity is central to social justice, which is a sacred value in Islam and a tenet of the faith. Indeed the Qur’an considers an act of charity as more than just a good deed because of its function in balancing social inequalities. The Qur’an also has numerous references to the importance of creating a just society and provides a framework for justice in inter-personal relationships toward the poor and needy, and connections between communities and nations.

Muslim non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other Islamic charitable institutions are therefore seen as instruments of social justice, and are part of the theological, intellectual and cultural heritage of the Muslim society. The instruments are divinely entrenched in the teachings of Islam, as illustrated in the following verse from the Qur’an: “If anyone saved a life it would be as if he had saved the life of the whole of mankind…’ (5:32). It is these types of teachings that have inspired acts of charity, concern for others and the provision of social welfare to be an integral role in Muslim societies for the last 1400 years, as without them faith is incomplete.

Charity in Islam, in the traditional sense of a transfer of material resources from the rich to the poor, falls into two categories in Islam: voluntary (Sadaqah) and obligatory (Zakat). These practises are supposed to empower communities and address their needs sufficiently enough to lift them out of their vicious cycle of poverty.

CHALLENGES FACED IN USE OF FUNDS COLLECTED THROUGH THE ZAKAT PROCESS

There is no shortage of funds for charitable causes coming from the Muslim world. The issue is not about the amount to be collected but what is done with it. A study in 2012 has estimated that every year, somewhere between US$200 billion and US$1 trillion are spent in “mandatory” alms and voluntary charity across the Muslim world. In fact, Islamic financial analysts estimate that “At the low end of the estimate, this is 15 times more than global humanitarian aid contributions in 2011 of $13 billion (UN Financial Tracking System)”. However, as economist Habib Ahmed calculated in 2004 – Muslim countries could lift all of their poor people out of poverty with only a third to a half of all potential Zakat collections.

These numbers speak not only to the duality of increasing religiosity and wealth in the Muslim world, but also to the globalisation of increasing poverty. It is estimated that one-quarter of the Muslim world is living on less than $1.25 a day (calculated by IRIN based on 2011 Human Development Index) with increasing needs for humanitarian response, recovery and peace-building in the Muslim world from Somalia, Syria, Mali among many other countries.

However in recent times, there has been a lack of understanding (and spirit) with regards Zakat (and Sadaqah). Zakat is largely regarded as charitable giving and its potential to go one step further and empower communities has not been adequately realised. As a result, the wide breadth of possibilities, which includes supporting non-Muslims; the levying of administration costs for the collection of Zakat; vital infrastructure projects; peace building and human trafficking initiatives remain grossly under funded and unexplored with Zakat. Herein lies the major challenge of balancing the role of Zakat in its conventional understanding with the contemporary demands of society today.

THE WAY FORWARD

If we are to move forward in terms of really contributing to humanitarian and development initiatives, we need to evaluate and understand the empowering concepts of Zakat in order to develop new models for implementation that are not only congruent with the times but address the empowering aspects of Zakat. At the end of the day, charity in Islam is about redistributive justice as the hoarding of wealth is not permissible and carries penalties if found guilty of such practice.

Private donors – including Muslim NGOs and other Islamic charitable institutions involved in the allocation of funds collected through Zakat – need to move away from the idea that humanitarian response is merely an act of charity and philanthropy, but a tool for empowering communities to build resilience to poverty and humanitarian assistance.

this originally appeared here