Condemned to Repeat
Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
Condemned to Repeat: The Paradox of Humanitarian Action
The book Condemned to Repeat? by Fiona Terry is about the problems which humanitarian organizations cause in areas that experience conflicts. It shows that, although these groups aim to serve those afflicted by conflicts, they prolong the wars in the process. They give a reason for those engaged in conflict not to find ways to put an end to the same. The role of these organizations is to save lives in the aftermath of natural and man-made disasters. Some of these humanitarian actions include the provision of shelter, water, food, and health services. She expounds on the views she holds regarding these groups in a bid to show the rest of the society the views which they would, otherwise, less expect, especially in light of how the agencies work. She acknowledges that these groups are essential in that they help to alleviate people in areas with various disasters or wars from the problems which they experience (Terry, 2002). They aim to ensure that people do not continue to suffer and, instead, get to attain standards of life which are desirable for them and, therefore, enable them to achieve the best outcomes which they would be interested in. This narrative aims to provide a review of the book, confirming that it is factual that humanitarian organizations spur wars in conflict areas through the support which they offer to those affected.
Review of Content
In the book, the author states that “by humanitarian groups helping those who are suffering, they are paradoxically sustaining conflicts” (Terry, 2002). The idea is sensible as humanitarian groups are constantly interested in raising funds to assist people who are affected by conflicts (Narang, 2015). They consider themselves neutral and prefer not to be engaged in the conflict directly; instead, they only focus on the locals who are affected by the conflicts. These groups mostly include women and children (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). Although the actions of these groups are meant to be for the good of the affected communities, they only have reversed outcomes. Those engaged in the warring activities continue to participate in the conflict as they do not get the chance to see the adverse consequences of the actions which they undertake. Humanitarian groups normally shelve most of the impacts. Therefore, the various people within countries engaged in conflicts fail to establish the right approaches which they could, otherwise, adopt to ensure that they do not continue to expose their loved ones to harm.
Generally, humanitarian organizations focus on providing care to the stricken war areas. They, thus, lose the entire point of the necessary actions which they need to adopt in light with ensuring that there are better outcomes in terms of the methods which need to be adopted to ensure people do not continue to suffer (Terry, 2002). A much better approach by these organizations would be to focus on ways in which they could contribute to the end of the conflicts. Rather than taking a neutral stand concerning the conflict, it would be necessary for them to take an advocacy stand. It is through the process that they will manage to show those who are involved in conflicts that the actions which they engage in are wrongful and contribute to significant levels of the suffering of people. The situation will enable them to be of substantial impact to the various communities.
However, the downside of the content provided by the author is the view that humanitarian organizations need to adjust to the political and economic environments of the countries which are experiencing conflict (Yamashita, 2017). The argument is detrimental because it exposes these organizations to the risk of losing the trust of all people in the communities which they aim to serve. The success of these organizations is mostly based on the levels of interactions that they usually have with community members (Terry, 2002). It is, therefore, necessary for them to keep off the political occurrences which exist in the specific country of interest. The approach is deemed to be highly crucial in enabling these organizations to obtain the support of all people found in the areas faced by a conflict. It is through the process that they manage to advance their activities without necessarily having the fear that they might fail to attain the necessary levels of success that they need. The model is deemed to be highly appropriate in terms of helping to improve their situation.
Review of Style
The author is effective in delivering ideas that support the central thesis by focusing on four historical cases. These include “Rwandan camps in Zaire, Cambodian camps in Thailand, Salvadoran and Nicaraguan camps in Honduras and Afghan camps in Pakistan” (Terry, 2002). Since the author focuses on more than one case, she manages to provide a more potent force in line with the argument. As a result, the author can convince the audience in regards to the ideas which she is projecting. By moving from one case to another, readers can identify with the idea that humanitarian organizations are doing little to minimize the levels of conflicts in areas where the challenge is experienced. It, therefore, shows the audience that humanitarian organizations need to be more inclined to address the problem, with the need to improve the situation of people found within the warring areas. Readers can establish that humanitarian organizations need to adopt a positive change in terms of their activities.
Conclusion
It is true that humanitarian organizations spur wars in conflict areas through the support which they offer to those affected. They help to show that humanitarian organizations fail to adopt the right processes, which would help to alleviate people in areas faced by conflicts from the sufferings which they experience. They need to play a more advocacy role than showing people involved in the conflict that things are well when they are not. Furthermore, where she provides instances of different cases, she aims to provide a deep emphasis on her argument; hence, people can believe it.
References
Narang, N. (2015). Assisting uncertainty: how humanitarian aid can inadvertently prolong civil war. International Studies Quarterly, 59(1), 184-195.
Terry, F. (2002). Condemned to Repeat? The Paradox of Humanitarian Action, Cornell University Press
Wood, R. M., & Sullivan, C. (2015). Doing harm by doing good? The negative externalities of humanitarian aid provision during civil conflict. The Journal of Politics, 77(3), 736-748.
Yamashita, H. (2017). Humanitarian space and international politics: The creation of safe areas. Taylor & Francis.