Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Complex Political Emergencies (complex + political_emergency)
Selected AbstractsMatching Response to Context in Complex Political Emergencies: ,Relief', ,Development', ,Peace-building' or Something In-between?DISASTERS, Issue 4 2000Philip White There is an ongoing debate over the value and pitfalls of the policy and practice of ,linking relief and development' or ,developmental relief' in aid responses to complex political emergencies (CPEs). Driven by concerns about relief creating dependence, sometimes doing harm and failing to address root causes of emergencies despite its high cost, pursuit of both relief and development has become a dominant paradigm among international aid agencies in CPEs as in ,natural' disasters. In CPEs a third objective of ,peace-building' has emerged, along with the logic that development can itself help prevent or resolve conflict and sustain peace. However, this broadening of relief objectives in ongoing CPEs has recently been criticised on a number of counts, central concerns being that it leads to a dilution of commitment to core humanitarian principles and is overly optimistic. This paper addresses these issues in the light of two of the CPEs studied by the COPE project: Eritrea and Somalia/Somaliland. It is argued that the debate has so far suffered from lack of clarity about what we mean by ,relief', ,development' and, for that matter, ,rehabilitation' and ,peace-building'. The wide spectrum of possible aid outcomes does not divide neatly into these categories. The relief,development divide is not always as clear-cut, technically or politically, as the critics claim. Moreover such distinctions, constructed from the point of view of aid programmers, are often of little relevance to the concerns of intended beneficiaries. Second, there has been insufficient attention to context: rather than attempting to generalise within and across CPE cases, a more productive approach would be to examine more closely the conditions under which forms of aid other than basic life support can fruitfully be pursued. This leads to consideration of collective agency capacity to respond effectively to diverse needs in different and changing circumstances. [source] The Impact of AIDS on Rural Households in Africa: A Shock Like Any Other?DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE, Issue 4 2002Carolyn Baylies In areas where HIV prevalence is high, household production can be significantly affected and the integrity of households compromised. Yet policy responses to the impact of HIV/AIDS have been muted in comparison to outcomes of other shocks, such as drought or complex political emergencies. This article looks at the reasons for the apparent under,reaction to AIDS, using data from Zambia, and examines recent calls to mitigate the effects of AIDS at household level. Critical consideration is directed at proposals relating to community safety nets, micro,finance and the mainstreaming of AIDS within larger poverty alleviation programmes. It is argued that effective initiatives must attend to the specific features of AIDS, incorporating both an assault on those inequalities which drive the epidemic and sensitivity to the staging of AIDS both across and within households. A multi,pronged approach is advocated which is addressed not just at mitigation or prevention, but also at emergency relief, rehabilitation and development. [source] Apples, Pears and Porridge: The Origins and Impact of the Search for ,Coherence' between Humanitarian and Political Responses to Chronic Political EmergenciesDISASTERS, Issue 4 2001Joanna Macrae During the 1990s a consensus emerged within the international humanitarian system that there was a need to enhance the ,coherence' between humanitarian and political responses to complex political emergencies. Closer integration between aid and political responses was seen to be necessary in order to address the root causes of conflict-induced crises, and to ensure that aid did not exacerbate political tensions. This paper explores the theory and practice of coherence over the past decade. It argues that, by sleight of hand, the coherence agenda has been reinterpreted such that humanitarian action has become the primary form of political action, rather than merely a substitute for it. The coherence agenda has been driven by geopolitical events, domestic policy considerations in donor countries and the more parochial concerns of aid policy, and is reflected in a number of substantive changes in the humanitarian architecture. Many of the tenets of this ,new humanitarianism' have been embraced by the majority of relief agencies, and thus legitimised it. The paper concludes that political humanitarianism, as opposed to active engagement by political and military actors, is flawed ethically and technically. It will provide neither an effective palliative for the ill effects of war, nor address its causes. [source] Matching Response to Context in Complex Political Emergencies: ,Relief', ,Development', ,Peace-building' or Something In-between?DISASTERS, Issue 4 2000Philip White There is an ongoing debate over the value and pitfalls of the policy and practice of ,linking relief and development' or ,developmental relief' in aid responses to complex political emergencies (CPEs). Driven by concerns about relief creating dependence, sometimes doing harm and failing to address root causes of emergencies despite its high cost, pursuit of both relief and development has become a dominant paradigm among international aid agencies in CPEs as in ,natural' disasters. In CPEs a third objective of ,peace-building' has emerged, along with the logic that development can itself help prevent or resolve conflict and sustain peace. However, this broadening of relief objectives in ongoing CPEs has recently been criticised on a number of counts, central concerns being that it leads to a dilution of commitment to core humanitarian principles and is overly optimistic. This paper addresses these issues in the light of two of the CPEs studied by the COPE project: Eritrea and Somalia/Somaliland. It is argued that the debate has so far suffered from lack of clarity about what we mean by ,relief', ,development' and, for that matter, ,rehabilitation' and ,peace-building'. The wide spectrum of possible aid outcomes does not divide neatly into these categories. The relief,development divide is not always as clear-cut, technically or politically, as the critics claim. Moreover such distinctions, constructed from the point of view of aid programmers, are often of little relevance to the concerns of intended beneficiaries. Second, there has been insufficient attention to context: rather than attempting to generalise within and across CPE cases, a more productive approach would be to examine more closely the conditions under which forms of aid other than basic life support can fruitfully be pursued. This leads to consideration of collective agency capacity to respond effectively to diverse needs in different and changing circumstances. [source] What Happens to the State in Conflict?: Political Analysis as a Tool for Planning Humanitarian AssistanceDISASTERS, Issue 4 2000Lionel Cliffe It is now part of received wisdom that humanitarian assistance in conflict and post-conflict situations may be ineffective or even counterproductive in the absence of an informed understanding of the broader political context in which so-called ,complex political emergencies' (CPEs) occur. Though recognising that specific cases have to be understood in their own terms, this article offers a framework for incorporating political analysis in policy design. It is based on a programme of research on a number of countries in Africa and Asia over the last four years. It argues that the starting-point should be an analysis of crises of authority within contemporary nation-states which convert conflict (a feature of all political systems) into violent conflict; of how such conflict may in turn generate more problems for, or even destroy, the state; of the deep-rooted political, institutional and developmental legacies of political violence; and of the difficulties that complicate the restoration of legitimate and effective systems of governance after the ,termination' of conflict. It then lists a series of questions which such an analysis would need to ask , less in order to provide a comprehensive check-list than to uncover underlying political processes and links. It is hoped these may be used not only to understand the political dynamics of emergencies, but also to identify what kinds of policy action should and should not be given priority by practitioners. [source] | ||||||||||