se the camp led CARE International and MSF to withdraw, other agencies were later compelled out by their sponsors. The number of international agencies dropped from 150 to 10. The withdrawal of aid despite evidence of revenge killing in Rwanda shows the uncompromising hard line adopted by new humanitarianism.
In 1996, Tutsi led Rwanda army attacked the camp as have been speculated resulting in more killings. However, proponents of new humanitarianism maintain that despite the death of some refugees, closing the camp was in the interest of long term peace and stability of the great lake region.
Though the Goma camp produced unwanted result but closing it and forcing the refugees’ home was not the solution. Rather than bring peace, it resulted in civil war in the North-Western part of the country.
This episode shows the problem of adopting any of the approach holistically and calls a revisit. However, it should be noted that withholding aid from people in their time of crises is not the best means to achieve sustainable security and development. Development and security should be people driven and meant to serve people.
It is understandable that aid intervention do not happen in political vacuum, as donor governments influence the actions of their bi-lateral and multi-lateral donor agencies.
For example funding policies can tie aid to condition like procuring goods and services needed for the intervention from a specific source or priorities are given to countries with common political interest (Anderson and Woodrow; 1998, 43). However, politicising such aid in conflict situation is killing the altruistic essence of intervention.
Since most conflicts that threaten global peace are in the South, the new humanitarian posture could be indirectly asking third world to conform to the dictates of the North or perish. Duffield captured this evolving system of exclusion and selective inclusion by stating that;
‘‘Unlike the more general logic of inclusion and subordination that existed when the capitalist world system was geographically expansive, however inclusion under global liberal governance is more discerning and selective. Southern governments, project partners and populations now have to show themselves fit for consideration’’. (Duffield ; 2001, 7)
Contrary to the claims echoed by the European Commission Humanitarian Aid Department (ECHO) that approach will bring about efforts made to eliminate dependency on aid by humanitarian receipts. It would make more sense to look at the new wars as relationships emanating from the changes in the society as rightly captured by Duffield and base on such understanding view and treat the conflicts like organism and not machine (Duffield ;2002.99)
Treating conflicts like organism means solutions to the problem is simply removing the conditions that supports it survival. The supporting conditions are all crises of underdevelopment and issues supporting the creed greed and grievance causes of war. It is only by so doing that the world will be marching towards sustainable security and development.
Conclusion
Duffield’s argument that a system of global governance is emerging is valid base on the confirmatory global development. The present wars are fought within countries as against the usual interstate wars of the pre cold war era. Most of the new wars are reflections of long suppressed gr
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。