Question 2:

Though, in principle it can be said that humanitarian efforts can only bring good rather
than harm. However, through examination of literature it can be observed that for many countries
the humanitarian assistance did more harm than good. Allen and Schomerus (2012, p.52)
described that humanitarian assistance is basically helping people in need: “humanitarian
assistance is supposed to be neutral, voluntary and aimed at alleviating acute suffering, there has
often been a tendency to view it as something above criticism”. These people can be strangers, or
at times even your enemies. Regardless, it can be said that humanitarian assistance is for people
or nations that are going through problems that you can solve or help in. A very recent example
is of the growing sympathy towards India by Pakistanis during the Covid-19 pandemic even after
the sworn enmity.
Humanitarian efforts can be divided in two aspects: assistance and intervention. While
humanitarian assistance is deployment of resources and personnel to alleviate financial or health
crisis in times of need, humanitarian intervention is the “deployment of armed force to prevent
genocide or other atrocities by one or more states” (Allen & Schomerus, 2012, p.45).
For this answer, I will analyze two cases, one where humanitarian assistance has helped
and one where it has brought harm. Firstly, I will analyze the case of Pakistan, where financial
aid has brought more harm than good. Pakistan has gone through several earthquakes, floods,
terrorism, and refugee situations. Khan and Ahmad (2007) describe that henceforth in over 40
years Pakistan has received financial aid of over 73 Billion dollars. However, we see that it
brought little to no change in Pakistan.
There are several sustainable development indicators that still show very little growth in
Pakistan (Khan and Ahmad, 2007). The first main reason for this is that the assistance was
diverted towards non-developmental sectors instead of developmental sectors. This not just
decreased social growth but also decreased economic growth. The main reason why this aid was
harmful for a developing country like Pakistan was because it was in the form of loans and debts
which had high interest rates. Moreover, due to corruption and poor transmission of aid, most of
the aid went into the pockets of few effluent people. The foreign aid became a curse for Pakistan
instead of a blessing.
Furthermore, Omar (2011) describes that aid in form of commodities was
“misappropriated by the concerned Government officials.” Moreover, these commodities
decreased competition in the agricultural market as the commodities were provided at very
nominal prices. The rate at which these commodities are produced was sufficiently greater than
at which it was provided through aid. Thus, the production in local sector was discouraged. Low
production of raw commodities in the long term created a dependence on importing these goods.
This deteriorated the industry in Pakistan and in long term has left them relying on aid rather
than becoming sufficient on themselves. In conclusion, the findings in the study conducted by
Khan and Ahmed (2007, p.236) determine that “the demerits of foreign aid that include but are
not limited to; harsh covenants from donors that times even call for compromising the autonomy
of the Nation, corruption within the government, fiscal imprudence and poor institutions turn
foreign aid into a curse.”
In contrast, aid in Uganda has helped better the overall emergency situation in Uganda.
The landscape of Uganda iwas plagued with a deadly conflict between the government and the
insurgency organization, Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). This conflict was premised on two
other factors. Firstly, there was contention between the LRA and the native population of
Uganda. The LRA was responsible for “indiscriminate killings and the abduction of children to
become fighters, auxiliaries, and sex slaves” (International Crisis Group, 2004). Secondly, the
conflict was further perpetuated by the rivalry between the Sudanese and Ugandans. This rivalry
fueled the conflict whereby both parties promote rebellion on either side of the border. All these
factors led to political instability, economic disruptions, and insecurity in the region. For these
reasons, Uganda has attracted a lot of attention in the international realm whereby humanitarian
organizations have stepped up to provide aid and assistance to improve the living conditions of
Ugandans.
The international image of Uganda stands as a model for other developing states against
the background of instability in the region. In contrast to Pakistan, aid in Uganda has brought a
positive influence on the overall wellbeing of the people. This has been made possible by the
state-backed efforts whereby the Museveni government in Uganda has actively worked to use aid
effectively in the infrastructural development of the country. The benefits of this state-based
project of aid usage can be seen through the improved living conditions of most Ugandans. In
addition to this, the international environment has been supportive in the sense that the
government of Uganda is internationally recognized (Allen & Schomerus, 2012, p.175). Also,
the humanitarian assistance through World bank has been crucial whereby it has created a
positive image of Uganda as a model state for development which encourages people to uphold
this image (Allen & Schomerus, 2012, p.176).
In conclusion, it can be observed that emergency humanitarian assistance can be both a
curse and a blessing for a country. This depends on the various factors that are operating within
the country. Hence, it can not be determined whether the emergency humanitarian assistance will
always be beneficial, which is why it is important that the countries that provide aid also keep
track of how their aid is utilized.