In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Preserving Humanitarian Space in Long-Term Conflict Peter Hansen With very few exceptions, it has been considered self-evident among those in the humanitarian community that to achieve a reasonable measure of success humanitarian action in conflict zones should be predicated upon notions of neutrality and impartiality. In recent years, particularly following the outbreak of numerous local and regional armed conflicts in places such as Angola, Afghanistan, the Balkans, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Burundi, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Chechnya, Colombia, and East Timor, an increasing number of observers have challenged this traditional presumption of humanitarian action, arguing that “humanitarian actors are deeply involved in the political sphere.”1 For anyone familiar with the humanitarian imperative that has come to define so much of what the United Nations (UN) has stood for since its founding, the implications of this challenge are great. If humanitarian space is purposefully compromised by assuming a political character, the risk of that space collapsing altogether becomes all too real. Some have suggested that the attack on UN headquarters in Baghdad in August 2003 was the result of “a dangerous blurring of the lines between humanitarian and political action” and “the consequent erosion of the core humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence” of the UN humanitarian mission.2 This line of thought maintains that the gradual erosion of humanitarian space in Iraq has been the result of the “choices made” (i.e., policy choices) by the international community through the UN since 1991, beginning with years of hard-hitting sanctions imposed by the Security Council, followed by “the lack of a clear UN mandate” in the aftermath of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003.3 The conceptual dilemma it presents is something that would seem to require the careful consideration of all who find themselves on the front-line of humanitarian action in conflict zones, particularly at this critical juncture in the history of the humanitarian enterprise. This chapter examines what is meant by the concept of humanitarian space, and how such space is best maintained in conflict zones while taking into account 155 CH12_2012_016_FUP_Cahill_p155-168.indd 155 CH12_2012_016_FUP_Cahill_p155-168.indd 155 2/13/13 9:50 PM 2/13/13 9:50 PM PETER HANSEN 156 divergent views on the subject. To this end, I explore how the largest humanitarian actor in the Middle East—the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)—has struggled to maintain its humanitarian space in a particularly volatile conflict zone for over five decades. Humanitarian Space: Principles, Challenges, and UNRWA’s Experience In his 1995 Annual Report, former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali noted that “safeguarding both the concept and the reality of ‘humanitarian space’ remains one of the most significant challenges facing the humanitarian community .”4 But what exactly is meant by the term humanitarian space? It has been variously described, inter alia, as follows: “Humanitarian space is more than a physical area; it is a concept in and through which impartiality and non-partisanship govern the whole of humanitarian action . . . in moral terms””; [it is]“a space that is not delimited, that is made up of tolerance and respect for each and every individual once they are wounded or captive, and displaced persons or refugees, no matter to which side they belong.”5 “If we assume that war and violence are extensions of the political, then we understand the traditional description of humanitarian space as an area separate from the political.”6 “Humanitarian space is a dynamic term. Far from being like a walled room of fixed dimensions, humanitarian space . . . expands or contracts depending on circumstances. It may be circumscribed—or expanded—by the actions of political and military authorities; it also may be enlarged—or contracted—by humanitarian actors themselves. In short, humanitarian space is neither durable nor transferable but elastic.”7 “Humanitarian space is that space where humanitarian assistance is provided on the basis of need and is delivered with impartiality. Humanitarian space is ‘owned’ by humanitarian agencies and actors and extends from their inherent values of independence and impartiality. Military forces must minimize any movement into ‘humanitarian space.’ Any such movement serves to blur the distinction between humanitarian and military actors.”8 It is apparent from the preceding characterizations that humanitarian space is based upon two central assumptions. First, it exists simultaneously on both a physical and moral plane. Accordingly, medical relief convoys and hospitals are CH12_2012_016_FUP_Cahill_p155-168.indd 156 CH12_2012_016_FUP_Cahill_p155-168.indd 156 2/13...

Share