The LRRD concept links “short-term relief measures with longer term development programmes in order to create synergies and provide a more sustainable response to crisis situations” (Ramet, 2012: 4). One way of conceptualizing this transitional period is through the concept of linking relief, rehabilitation, and development (LRRD). The challenges such organizations face when confronted with a post-conflict context is the focus of this article. Humanitarian organizations have a particularly difficult time adapting to transitional periods. New actors may also enter onto the scene after the fighting ends, such as development agencies. Some actors must take on new roles, such as the United Nations shifting from peace mediation to peacekeeping. For international actors, these transitional periods also necessitate adaptation. Whether a war was civil or international in scope, concluded through a peace agreement or by a military victory, for states, a war’s conclusion is a time to consolidate political gains. Throughout, the focus is on the concept of transition.Ī post-conflict context can be conceptualized as a transitional period bounded by past war and future peace, a period which introduces a number of new challenges. This crisis analysis is set against the background of the literature on linking relief, rehabilitation, and development and Walter Benjamin’s conception of peace. A “war-immediate post war-post conflict” transitional framework based on Koselleck’s definition of crisis is proposed to help organizations understand the war-to-peace transition and construct their relationships with states. Priorities such as protection, witnessing, and medical aid were in tension with governmental policies related to the emerging peace and the changing context. Many variables contributed to the decision-making on continued presence in post-conflict Sri Lanka by MSF-H against the security policies of the government of Sri Lanka. This article researches the changing relationship between the humanitarian INGO Médecins Sans Frontières (Holland) (MSF-H) and the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) in the period 2009–2012. The nature of this relationship changes as a conflict transitions from active war to the early days of peace. Clearly, the question is not for humanitarian INGOs to answer on their own, as host governments have their own perspectives on the nature of crises, a perspective which generates political sensitivities for the relationship constructed between states and humanitarian INGOs. This article queries whether humanitarian crises continue into post-conflict periods. To INGOs, these are defined as “humanitarian crises.” Post-conflict situations present far less clear-cut choices for humanitarian INGOs. The operational environments for humanitarian international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) are conflict zones and situations of natural and man-made disasters.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |