60
possibility for this. Yet in gender terms there is still a divide that does need crossing. A basic principle of humanity is expressed by the Red Cross as “the desire to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found”, responding “without discrimination” to ensure respect for “the human being”. While originally referring to “the wounded on the battlefield”, in today’s complex contexts the focus is reaching all who are in need, regardless of their political or ethnic affiliation, or age or sex. The focus of humanitarian actions is not on the differences between people but on the ‘sameness’ of their plight. This focus, while seemingly useful to ensure the needs of girls are met, may not be as helpful as it appears, since at times there is a need to emphasise the difference (of girls) in order to claim their sameness (as equal human beings).111 In other words, drawing on notions of sameness can hide differences between how boys and girls experience an event and the specific needs of girls may go unmet.112 In particular, survivors of sexual violence have generally been neglected in standard models of humanitarian aid delivery.113 Moreover, the profound effects of rape on women and girls have received little attention in the longer term, as the focus tends to be on seeking to expose the identities of the perpetrators rather than ensuring the continued wellbeing of the survivors.114 The continued construction of humanitarian response as short term means the medium-term needs of the survivors of violence fall into the ‘gap’ between relief and development. Yet the reality is that in the twenty-first century humanitarian relief is not a ‘short-term’ intervention. A small set of countries account for the majority of humanitarian aid spending, year after year.115 In the absence of the construction of a permanent welfare
Plan/elias asMare
all are treated as equally worthy of aid. These principles are not abstract notions but important practical issues since independence, neutrality and impartiality help humanitarian actors gain access to the victims – largely women and children – of conflicts and disasters when they occur in politically charged situations. Access is dependent on this reputation of neutrality and helps keep responders safe, particularly in a context of the increasing militarisation of humanitarian response. The ‘humanitarian’ response to events of the 1990s, particularly Rwanda, led to the recognition that humanitarian actions could and had done quite a lot of harm. The end of the 1990s saw debate over the role of protection, politics and humanitarian response in emergencies107 and the emergence of a new or ‘political’ humanitarianism. While some saw this as an ‘assault’ on the humanitarian framework108, for others the fact that the political nature of relief aid – or that it was driven by ‘politically sensitive’ principles – was recognised109 provided a more realistic understanding of humanitarian actions. There was recognition that aid can fuel conflict if given to all, including ‘undeserving victims’ who are perpetuating the violence, thus questioning the notion of universality. The value of neutrality was also questioned, with suggestions that humanitarian workers should respond to the acts they see, such as those that go against the Geneva Convention, by ‘witnessing’ or speaking out. This ‘witnessing’ should, of course, mean speaking out against gender-based violence as a weapon of war and against systematic violence against women postdisaster. Most importantly in this context, rather than ‘do no harm’, current humanitarian thinking highlights the need to do ‘good’ and suggests aid should help build peace, stability and ‘development’. Thus it might appear the divide has been bridged and humanitarian actors have now added longerterm ‘development’-related goals, such as to reduce future vulnerability to disasters, to their traditional short-term relief goals. The problem is humanitarianism has become something of a contested notion and while ‘new’ humanitarian thinking perhaps provides a bridge across the development-humanitarian divide, there may also be a new divide – between humanitarian actors. While humanitarian actions are now more ‘ambitious’, there is also greater ambiguity around how humanitarianism is understood, funded and practised.110 This more nuanced approach, coupled with its more politically sensitive nature, might also suggest a more gendered response – or at least the