3.1.2. Risks and challenges for Humanitarian action
Responsibility, guilt and aid diversion: Ukrainian government seems to be in a major paradox as on one hand it claims its sovereignty over all Ukraine while on the other ceases to deliver services, hence indirectly delegating this responsibility to de facto authorities reinforcing in someway its legitimacy. In any case the limitation of aid provided in eastern Ukraine either due to Governmental will or de facto authorities limited capacity put humanitarian actors in the difficult position of having to bear the costs alone and could in some cases ‘trap’ humanitarian actors in the negative power balance (H03) As stakes grow higher, humanitarians may have to further compromise to be able of …show more content…
A misplaced declaration, picture or statement can lead to negative consequences for Humanitarian actors. Additionally, Humanitarian actors have to be extremely cautious when naming political entities or places. This also varies according to the transmitter or receiver. Most Interviewees (6/7) have declared that any term used in Ukraine could potentially be politically loaded and could have consequences. “We need to be extremely carful when we issue a statement and any multiparty discussion or meeting becomes, in presence or not of external actors the pretext for verbal skirmish and sparring” …show more content…
This fear can be explained by two possible factors: firstly the accrued awareness of the stakes, risks and impact of instrumentalization on aid among humanitarian actors thru recent cases such as in Iraq or Afghanistan. This assertion can be supported by the interviews from INGO, governmental or UN aid agencies (7/7), which have not only recognized, without any hesitation, instrumentalization as a key challenge but also have sheared the internal interest and debates over this subject. Secondly, the context itself seems to be a determinant factor in the fear. Indeed, fear can directly or indirectly impact, humanitarian actors, by adding delays, obliging them to add deterrent measures or even preventing them to act. “We are sometimes so afraid of being instrumentalized that we need to think fifteen times before doing anything, then its often too late, we refrain from taking initiatives” (H02). Another respondent stated “Fear can indeed cut initiatives, but, this fear can be completely legitimate especially when it comes to the risk taken by National and locally hired staff”(H06). If expatriates are aware of instrumentalization risk and possible dangers, its impact on them is usually fairly limited, unlike for national staff that may face severe retaliation, such as infringement to terrorist
Responsibility, guilt and aid diversion: Ukrainian government seems to be in a major paradox as on one hand it claims its sovereignty over all Ukraine while on the other ceases to deliver services, hence indirectly delegating this responsibility to de facto authorities reinforcing in someway its legitimacy. In any case the limitation of aid provided in eastern Ukraine either due to Governmental will or de facto authorities limited capacity put humanitarian actors in the difficult position of having to bear the costs alone and could in some cases ‘trap’ humanitarian actors in the negative power balance (H03) As stakes grow higher, humanitarians may have to further compromise to be able of …show more content…
A misplaced declaration, picture or statement can lead to negative consequences for Humanitarian actors. Additionally, Humanitarian actors have to be extremely cautious when naming political entities or places. This also varies according to the transmitter or receiver. Most Interviewees (6/7) have declared that any term used in Ukraine could potentially be politically loaded and could have consequences. “We need to be extremely carful when we issue a statement and any multiparty discussion or meeting becomes, in presence or not of external actors the pretext for verbal skirmish and sparring” …show more content…
This fear can be explained by two possible factors: firstly the accrued awareness of the stakes, risks and impact of instrumentalization on aid among humanitarian actors thru recent cases such as in Iraq or Afghanistan. This assertion can be supported by the interviews from INGO, governmental or UN aid agencies (7/7), which have not only recognized, without any hesitation, instrumentalization as a key challenge but also have sheared the internal interest and debates over this subject. Secondly, the context itself seems to be a determinant factor in the fear. Indeed, fear can directly or indirectly impact, humanitarian actors, by adding delays, obliging them to add deterrent measures or even preventing them to act. “We are sometimes so afraid of being instrumentalized that we need to think fifteen times before doing anything, then its often too late, we refrain from taking initiatives” (H02). Another respondent stated “Fear can indeed cut initiatives, but, this fear can be completely legitimate especially when it comes to the risk taken by National and locally hired staff”(H06). If expatriates are aware of instrumentalization risk and possible dangers, its impact on them is usually fairly limited, unlike for national staff that may face severe retaliation, such as infringement to terrorist