Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Neha Erasmus
Recent Activity
-
Neha commented on the article |I look forward to your post Paul.
Transitionland:
Meeting external reporting standards are crucial for CSOs to maintain funding from external donors because external donors make those requirements.
I hope I've never said that for me it is perfect advocacy or nothing, because that would be the ultimatum of a fool. In fact if you read the last post about international justice, I said 'working towards' perfection is what we can and should do. I have also posted on the 'Making Sense of Darfur' blog if you are interested to know more of my views: http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/darfur/author/nehae/
I am very fortunate to work for Justice Africa (www.justiceafrica.org). While we have an international base in London (I will soon move to Sudan though) we are a Pan-African organisation. I work for Justice Africa because the organisations' thinking is in line with my own and I am encouraged from our work that such thinking is perfectly practical, possible and resource-effective. In fact many other organisations undertake work in a similar way. -
Neha commented on the article |Charles thank you for your articulate comments.
Yes I agree Paul (re: spooning eyes out and also female circumcision) but there should be different processes for reaching a decision versus making a judgement about the goodness or badness of practices. Also circumcision and eye spooning are at an extreme whereas most situations are not. The hijab or burkha for example has been the subject of much debate (in London at a particular time there was huge controversy over it; France banned the hijab in schools). Using Michael's title for one of the discussions in this series, the question is: Who gets to decide?
That's an interesting point. But because arguments are used in a certain way, or heard from one side rather than another, this does not validate or invalidate them. One of the things I think we sometimes forget is that truthful / valid points can be made by a 'bad' side and false / invalid points can be made by a 'good' side - (also remember that we make judgements to decide who is good and who is bad). It is very good to be suspicious, but that doesn't mandate being dismissive. -
Neha commented on the article |
Paul I'm glad you brought up the point about capacity building: an interesting way to look at capacity building is that it helps people meet an external standard of normality rather than genuinely assisting peopleto meet their needs (see Marianne Gronemeyer's article on Helping).
-
Neha commented on the article |
Paul thank you for the very interesting and difficult question.
Universal values are difficult to define or pin down. Lets take the example of female genital mutilation: the very term carries values and moral judgements. Yes, it is a practice that endangers the health and reproductive systems of women. It can be a traumatising experience. Can it also not have beneficial functions such as affirming membership in a community and reinforcing a sense of value in a person? The most important questions is though "Who should decide if the practice is good or bad, and how?" Abdullahi An' Naim's answer would be through cross-cultural and inter-cultural dialogue, rather than text-book criteria. I'm sure there are many possible answers and we should explore them.
The individualistic/communitarian argument is the best articulated one, but there are others. Whether these arguments have been used to cover abuse, shouldn't detract from their validity. If we really want to get regimes to respect citizens then we should work towards a system where there can be little argument no? -
Neha commented on the article |
Hi transitionland,
Thank you for the comments. Apologies if what I was saying seemed sloppy or foolish. To explain a little bit: this was a dialogue that Michael and I had after the last article on advocacy I did. Therefore the references to Africa were a result of this last article, and of course because that is my area of interest / knowledge / experience. Also the dialogue was not split into three - it was one long conversation; therefore these comments are not an argument in themselves.
Of course every region / country / community has differences. When I speak of Western, I am speaking of the Western modernized system of thinking and doing which pervades mainstream international advococy practice (based around international human rights discourse). I do not argue about what is 'wrong' or 'right' but emphasize that values shape our thinking; therefore different values call for different thinking.
I hope these clarifications are helpful. -
Neha commented on the article |Hi Michael,
I agree we were somehow arguing over each other. My apologies, I will try and be a little more focused.
I think what I am trying to say is that when humanitarian agencies make decisions, they should be based on what is best for the people they aim to support, not for 'their work' which is a subtle but important difference. If other agencies can fill gaps, they should.
I think where we disagree is that if agencies do so, they would leave themselves open to being manipulated politically in future. I think a better way of ensuring that they are not manipulated politically is working hard at gaining trust and confidence from all stakeholders, which includes the government. You cannot act in a vacuum and you cannot be independent from the possibility of government or other interference in any country or context. Therefore the best way of working effectively is through gaining the cooperation of stakeholders. As Gandhi said "you cannot shake hands with a closed fist" and shaking hands is necessary to begin to negotiate problems.
So I would rephrase your statement that "effective humanitarian action is predicated on agencies having some independence" to "effective humanitarian action is predicated on agencies having the trust and confidence of stakeholders".
Taking the issue of speaking out about rape. I am certainly no expert, but in general, is speaking out about issues the only way, or even the most effective way to improve a situation? Are there other alternatives, perhaps working with stakeholders quietly, or supporting negotiations with players? Perhaps less publicity and more inclusive engagement is the way forward? In which case, the government would feel less threatened and perhaps more willing to cooperate? I consider what is acceptable differs from country to country as it is simply unrealistic to expect the same standards everywhere. We must therefore find ways to work in different situations.
I was making the point about humanitarianism not being so benevolent (albeit badly) because I think often we get carried away with what agencies are entitled to because of the nature of their work. There is an assumption that because aid agencies are 'helping people' selflessly, they should be given special status, above and beyond the status of the people they are there to help even. I was simply trying to make the point that this entitlement is not only unrealistic, but perhaps it is also not so well-founded.
I agree with your point about all humanitarianism being political. Then we shouldn't really quibble about being used politically no?
Yes you make me think a lot.
Thanks. -
Neha commented on the article |
If agencies ARE easily replaceable, surely that is a good thing which greatly benefits the very people humanitarian agencies are there to help in the first place? By NOT filling in gaps to protect the image of aid agencies as vital and irreplaceable, they are acting counter to every idea of what it is to help.
Why should humanitarian agencies be above all forms of government regulation (legit and illegit) when all other citizens and groups are not? There is a perception they are entitled to diplomatic immunity of sorts, because they are benevolent helpers. But humanitarianism has transgressed traditional notions of help in many ways and is no longer a benevolent helper.
Take the example of a man passing an alley at night and hearing someone cry out for help. He responds to the cry and risks his own safety to helps someone who has been attacked. Marianne Gronemeyer in her article 'Helping' points out that humanitarianism is in conflict with helping in a number of ways. This case speaks to the point that humanitarianism no longer responds to a cry, but is frankly calculating; it looks at the probability of success and calculates the risks and gains to itself.
Also, if humanitarian agencies wish to avoid being used as a political tool, then how does it make sense for them to engage in political manoevres themselves? -
Neha commented on the article |
Hi Michael,
"Meanwhile, other agencies are reluctant to fill the gaps left by the expulsions out of concern that doing so would make all agencies seem easily replaceable."
I find this crazy! Don't you? -
Neha commented on the article |Dear Transition,
Thanks for the comments.
It is not the ICC itself that is problematic or impartial (although it may have its problems), but the entire international system which does not allow space for equitably distributed justice.
My point is that for an external agent to effect change in a holistically positive way, it must itself be wholly positive. The question of whether the indictment decision was right or not is debatable, but what has happened as a consequence is not. Bashir has had a basis to refute the ICC's legitimacy and rally support, and many African states, who were keen proponents of the court, are now no longer enthusiasts of international justice through the ICC. This is a sad loss created through power imbalances and yes, hypocrisy, at a higher level.
Your point on sustainable peace processes: you are right; my apologies, it should read 'creating sustainable peace processes'. In 2006, pressure by Western Advocacy organisations on governments and the UN to get peacekeepers 'on the ground', greatly compromised what may have been the best chance at securing long term peace in Darfur. It speeded up a process that was not yet fully inclusive and needed far more hard work in engaging with stakeholders and building trust. As Alex de Waal, who was one of the advisors to the process wrote:
"Most mediations that bring African civil wars to an end are long drawn-out processes, with negotiations interspersed with the implementation of intermediate agreements (such as ceasefires) and confidence-building mechanisms. As the AU mediation began and continued, advisors (including myself) repeatedly asked for sufficient time to allow the parties to negotiate and build at least a modicum of trust. But, constantly, a stream of high-profile international visitors insisted that the process be hurried to a conclusion, because the humanitarian crisis was so bad. People were dying, we were told, so we should not be so slow."
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits