Many international agencies have in the recent past raised concerns about increased attacks and killing of their staffs. The United Nations which is the biggest humanitarian body in the world, as well as other aid agencies, are concerned about their personal safety especially when reaching out to war victims. Staff security and accessibility problems are two main issues affecting humanitarian actions especially in Iraq and Afghanistan (Terry 2013). Hugo Slim made a presentation at the conference on Humanitarian Coordination in Geneva in 2004, highlighting challenges facing humanitarian operations in war-torn countries. This paper reviews the article by Hugo Slim titled: “How We Look: Hostile Perceptions of Humanitarian Action” to understand and appreciated how humanitarian actions and activities are perceived in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The paper also analyses the presentation of the article reviewing how the author analyses the situation.
Slim starts by illustrating the gravity of the matter at hand as well as the increasing concerns regarding hostilities humanitarian workers are exposed. To depict the position on the ground, the author introduces the cases in Iraq and Afghanistan as his area of focus. At the recent IASC humanitarian forum, participants suggested the need to integrate military, political and humanitarian operations because politicising humanitarian services is a threat to humanitarian agencies. The author also presents a report prepared by the Tufts University to understand the elite perception of humanitarian actions. In this report, humanitarians are branded as "of the north" or "crusade or Western conspiracy" (Slim 2004). The article states that such perceptions erode the acceptance of humanitarians. Slim explains why his presentation focused on Iraq and Afghanistan and how the war on terror impacts negatively on humanitarian agencies.
Seeing Ourselves
It is impossible to see ourselves from a literal point because even mirrors only provide images or glimpses of our likenesses. As a result, the theme of the paper is brought forth, perceptions. It also brings out the need for information, imagination, and empathy to think of our appearances and other’s perceptions regarding us.
How We Are Seen
The most visible aspect of hostility is presented in the form of countries Iraq and Afghanistan. According to Slim, beyond Afghanistan and Iraq, there are different contexts where humanitarian actions are challenged resulting in death, for example, in Burundi and Bosnia. Slim believes that the war on terror makes it more complex hence needs careful analysis. Slim emphasises the need to avoid generalisation and instead engage in contextualised analysis to have real insights. He presents different perceptions of humanitarian action within specific places and periods (Slim 2004). The article presents two powerful stories talking about challenges involved when people interpret things from different perspectives. The first story is about individual perceptions based on specific example while the second story talks about how humanitarians see themselves differently.
Who is Looking?
Using two different stories, the article offers different perspectives of situations that directly relate to humanitarian experiences. The two stories bring out the monolithic as well as the indoctrinated half truths that categorise people (Slim 2004).
The story about Rabbi Cohen and a bus conductor presents real scenarios related to the humanitarian situations. The story is about how people are wrongly targeted or attacked by violent groups or individuals (Gottschalk 2010). The story presents how individuals’ perception can cause adverse effects on innocent people. The author uses rhetoric questions to engage readers’ minds on this sensitive subject (Slim 2004). The second story about the Red Rose presents how people perceive issues based on different philosophical beliefs. The author gives an example of two Scotsmen's experience about a Rose. Thomas Reid and David Hume believed that individual perceptions are shaped by ideas that exist in one’s mind. According to the two Scotsmen, reality is mentally developed. Giving an example of the red rose, according to Thomas, a rose smells the way it is supposed to smell. A rose will always be a rose. The author tends to apply similar views regarding humanitarian services (Slim 2004).
The Cause of Hostility
Slim includes his opinion in the discussion stating that people perceive things differently. It is from this premise that humanitarian workers are targeted out of misguided perceptions because they are not what they are perceived. For example, for him, a rose can mean different things to different people. Such perceptions are likely to affect how we touch, smell and look at the red rose. The article uses relevant comparisons to emphasise on the fact that people tend to perceive things differently.
Is it a Perception Problem at all?
He uses philosophers' arguments to understand how individuals perceive issues; these are common comparisons used in several articles (Burtscher 2011).Slim highlights why humanitarian actions are perceived as a Western idea. The fact that humanitarian services became active after the cold war, their actions are associated with western agencies (O'Reilly 2014). Slim explains why humanitarian actions are facing challenges from Islamic and Arab nations citing various historical facts. Presenting different group perceptions on humanitarian actions helps the readers understand the different opinions held by these groups. The authors believe that in Iraq and Afghanistan, humanitarian actions are viewed from a single perspective. Gunmen and suicide bombers think of humanitarians as enemies from the west or collaborators. Politicians and religious leaders have moderate perceptions about humanitarian action because they are likely to benefit from their services (Collinson et al. 2010).
The author provides various recommendations that, if applied, can minimise hostility witnessed by humanitarian agencies. On the other hand, he strives to stress optimism as well as encouragement though chiding on those who epitomize the ethical drawbacks in humanitarian work. Slim suggests that aid agencies should tailor their operations to adapt to every new situation. He acknowledges the fact that there cannot be a single way of implementing humanitarian action because different groups are likely to perceive humanitarian action differently (Slim 2004). Slim suggests that in future, humanitarians actions needs to be presented in different forms by being creative about their operations but still uphold important values and commitment. As he concludes, the author offers encouraging words to humanitarian agencies citing specific places where their services have been valued, for example, Rwanda, Somalia and other places in Central America. As witnessed in Rwanda, citizens preferred humanitarian agencies to stay; their presence was important during the reconciliation process (Slim 2004).
Strengths and Weakness
The presentation of the article’s two stories provides critical and specific points of discussion. Also, the article provides strong objectives that are timely considering the enhanced need for humanitarian work as highlighted in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan. The use of real situations as happening on the ground offers the weight and clarity of the denoted message as well as the audience. In particular, the methodology applied in the valuation of hostility towards humanitarian workers often does not go beyond theoretical impact modelling. Lastly, the review as presented in its current form is significant in addressing issues at hand as well as contributing to providing an in-depth understanding on the hostility to humanitarian workers.
On the other hand, regardless of the solid points of the review, it seems incomplete in its current form and partly imbalanced. The ten pages cannot be termed sufficient in highlighting the in-depth analysis of the gravity of hostility towards humanitarian workers. Also, the solutions provided seem a bit superficial considering the focus seems biased in negativity.
Conclusion
“How We Look: Hostile Perceptions of Humanitarian Action” highlights the real problems that humanitarian workers are faced though the need for optimism seems to be indirectly propagated. Personal perception takes the main seat in the entire paper because the humanitarian action can be received positively or negatively depending on individual perception about their intentions. Victims of war perceive them as protectors while other groups view them as enemies based on different political ideologies. These factors explain why the humanitarian actions in Iraq and Afghanistan and other parts of the world generate different ideas.