摘要:Global governance is emerging to manage the new wars and regulate the complex relations emanating from globalisation. States are gradually losing their competence while non state actors are assuming greater roles in the affairs of the world.
this time remained neutral in the face of conflicts and maintained impartiality in the disbursement of aids. Hence, both warring groups had nothing against aid agencies and allowed them access to war zones.
The seeming failure of liberal peace in the mid 1990s shifted the focus to a new humanitarian framework which laid emphasis on conflict resolution and post war reconstruction. Rather than addressing conflict with humanitarian assistance only, the new policy thrust strives to prevent or reduce the escalation of conflicts by conditioning assistance on future outcomes.
The political or new humanitarian approach formulated to bring stability to the troubled third world is anchored on the universal human rights but is politically sensitive. It sees war as the cog in development wheel of progress and therefore ready to apply any means to contain or neutralise such conflicts. It is politically sensitive in the sense that it was devised to prevent or find quick effective solutions to conflicts when possible.
Otherwise maintain a distance in situations when warring parties do not conform to the set standard. It condemns the apolitical and neutrality principles of the old approach claiming it is impossible to remain politically neutral in the face of conflict. Base on this, it favours the politicisation of aid in humanitarian intervention.
The loss of neutrality meant that aid providers took sides and spoke up against human rights abuses. Though it breeds animosity between the sides judged as the aggressor, new humanitarianism believes that maintaining silence is condoling violence and human rights abuses.
Intervention is now dependent on an assessment of the present and future impact of aid intervention. To ensure that it does not become a catalyst for fuelling conflicts as was the case with the old approach. Just like the mergence of development and security, aid, the tool for construction is fused with military and diplomatic tools to make a coherent conflict and development
strategy (Fox ;2001,276).
This new strategy creates a way for humanitarian groups to become involve with the governance of the warring state and the opportunity to model the state for easy foreign influence or global governance in practical terms. A senior official of ECHO, Mikael Barfod noted that;
‘‘There is no way we can handle a situation without linking up with human rights issues, without linking up with development, to understand the real impact. We have to be part of the political process leading to peace’’ (Fox ;2001,276)
Going by his statements and the use of policy as politics in the manner of carrot and sticks, it is evident that global actors base on their commitment to solve the persistent crises of development and security seek to break all barriers that may forestall free movement of goods, people interpreted as consolidation of global liberal governance.
Base on this, Fox argues that rather than base its actions and inactions on saving people, the new humanitarian focus on how the perceived consequences of intervention fits into the big picture of development plans. Similarly, Duffield asserts that the shift in humanitarianism tends to focus on how such action supports or affects the social process (Duffield; 2001,80). In the long run humanitarian assistance should be u
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。