I so agree. In the long 1970s and 1980s #humanitarianism was based on #solidarity and #oneworldism. Thank you, Hugo! @HSlim_Oxford You don’t have to be neutral to be a good humanitarian: http://thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2020/0 … (@newhumanitarian)
-
Good point Paul
@PRHHO. It is not to us to corner (local) organisations into particular identities and motivations. Yet, wherever I worked I met many great humanitarians with diverse values who felt ill at ease with the int’l humanitarian discourse. They need being heard too!
I didn’t read it as Paul did — I thought he was taking on the way neutrality has been used as an exclusionary principle. We have to rethink how the principles are interpreted, who “owns” them etc if we want to decolonize things in a way that makes aid more equitable + effective
-
-
I didn’t see him saying community based aid couldn’t be neutral. (By the same token: It’s definitely false to assume international actors de facto can be! *cough afghanistan cough somalia etc*) and tbh? Impartiality matters way more imo
-
And I love that he’s breathing new life into debates over the principles. God, it’s been a stale discussion for so long. And he’s challenging some entrenched assumptions and hopefully making space for a new kind of conversation. Thank goodness for that
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Agree! Neutrality is being used politically and exclusionary; both by glorifying the principle and by disputing other’s neutrality.
-
I also wonder, in civil wars, how can you be truly neutral? As someone who lives there. Rather than an outsider. You’d struggle to survive without alliances on all sides. But you CAN be impartial. Which is why I think the importance of impartiality often trumps neutrality
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.