THE HUFFINGTON POST

Keep the U.S. Response to Global Humanitarian Disasters Impartial

By Samuel A. Worthington, InterAction President and CEO

Posted December 17, 2010

The capacity to respond to the urgent needs of vulnerable people in emergencies around the world is a
central pillar of the U.S. government’s foreign assistance portfolio. It should exemplify the impartial
outpouring of humanitarian response in the wake of unthinkable tragedy. As the State Department’s
just-released Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) acknowledges, it is an area in
which the U.S. holds a comparative advantage. This is a good thing since, as we’ve seen over the last
year, the U.S. is frequently asked to play a lead role in the international response to humanitarian crises.
 
Though revision of the U.S.’s approach to humanitarian assistance is not central to the QDDR, it gets
some attention. The QDDR proposes a distinction between natural disaster response, in which the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) will lead, and response to protracted, conflict-driven
emergencies, in which the Department of State will lead. In the latter instance, it clarifies that “USAID
will also drive the humanitarian response under State’s overall lead when such disasters occur in acute
political and security situations.”
 
Two aspects of this approach are problematic. First, the rationale for State leadership in response to
conflict-driven emergencies is understandable, given the importance of political and diplomatic
engagement to resolve conflicts. However, the risk is that the humanitarian response itself will be
politicized, with diplomatic and counter-terror imperatives trumping humanitarian principles, which
mandate that impartial response to vulnerability is the most important criterion for determining the
nature and scope of the response. Secondly, the distinction between natural and conflict-induced
emergencies is not as clear as the QDDR implies. The very existence and scale of natural disasters often
reflect social divisions, political oppression, and conflict. Is the flooding in Pakistan a natural disaster or
another aspect of the complex political challenges that the country is facing? Cyclone Nargis in Burma
was a natural disaster, but the political context of the country dictated the specific challenges of the
response. Will USAID or State lead in these and similar situations?
 
The QDDR does not explicitly address or resolve the issue of which government entity will lead in
responding to the needs of people displaced within their own countries due to conflict or political
emergencies.  At present USAID leads in responding to the needs of conflict-affected internally displaced
persons (IDPs), who are often among the most vulnerable in crisis situations, while the State
Department’s refugee bureau (PRM) has the primary responsibility for meeting the needs of refugees,
individuals who are residing outside the borders of their country of origin due to persecution and
conflict. The QDDR rightly acknowledges that the positive engagement between the State Department
and Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has enhanced UNHCR’s ability to meet
the needs of vulnerable people worldwide. With UNHCR increasingly responding to the needs of IDPs,
however, in effect USAID and State are sharing responsibility for the U.S. government response to
internal displacement. The logical implication of the QDDR is that State will lead in responding to the
needs of conflict-affected internal displaced people, but its failure to address this issue specifically is a
surprising gap.
 
USAID’s principal disaster response entity, the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) has the
legislative authority to provide humanitarian assistance based on need. Particularly in complex crises, it
is imperative that the activity that flows from the QDDR reinforces the role of USAID in meeting the
needs of vulnerable people according to core principles of the humanitarian imperative (acknowledging
the right of every human being affected by a natural or manmade disaster to receive humanitarian
assistance), independence (ensuring humanitarian staff are not used by governments or other groups for
non-humanitarian purposes), and impartiality (ensuring that assistance is provided according to need
and without regard to race, religion, nationality or political affiliation).
 
The QDDR acknowledges that offices under the authority of USAID’s Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and
Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) – including OFDA among others – have the critical ability to mobilize
resources to mount fast and effective humanitarian relief.  We appreciate the commitment to doubling
OFDA’s staff (and hope that this will be matched by an increase of much-needed resources). These
represent appropriate acknowledgements of the unique capacities that USAID’s DCHA brings to the
table. Any attempt to unite the breadth of U.S. efforts under a whole of government response, makes it
imperative to ensure that the unique capacities of each government entity are preserved. Coordination
should not be confused with a complete unity of purpose.  As the QDDR acknowledges, in complex,
manmade conflicts and political crises, the State Department has the comparative advantage and
diplomatic expertise to support negotiations to resolve crises and negotiate access for humanitarians to
vulnerable populations. Similarly, in responses to natural disasters, the diplomatic weight of the U.S. will
need to be called upon to resolve a host of issues – for example, expediting host country customs
clearance of relief supplies. The military may also play an important role in supporting disaster response
in certain contexts, but always under civilian leadership and based on needs clearly articulated by
disaster response professionals – not supply-driven.
 
The U.S. is not the sole responder in an era of increasing humanitarian crises. The Obama administration
has expanded U.S. multilateralism. The QDDR’s commitments to ongoing engagement with the UN
cluster system and its new Emergency Relief Coordinator and the creation of a Humanitarian Policy
Working Group aimed at coordinating U.S. efforts to strengthen the international humanitarian system
are welcome ones – and things on which we hope to hear more.
 
The QDDR contains many positive elements. The InterAction community is hopeful that it will lead to
greater collaboration between USAID and the Department of State to enable the U.S. to respond
effectively to humanitarian emergencies and the needs of vulnerable people.