The decolonisation of humanitarian aid and localisation: a critical synthesis

NGOs are very much involved in the increasing complexity of the geopolitical situation and the accompanying decline in people’s living conditions in many different parts of the world. It is incumbent on them to set out clearly and openly their experiences, including sensitive examples, of dealing with North-South inequality, or – to put it more straightforwardly – the rich versus the poor.

As a matter of urgency, they should:

• Improve the quality and efficiency of their programmes.
• Look for solutions to the major problem of humanitarian access.
• Improve the way in which their presence is viewed by the people affected, and thereby to improve the security of humanitarian workers.
• Question the future of international NGOs: should they exist indefinitely, and how legitimate will they and their work continue to be?

The term ‘decolonisation’ and the difficulties associated with it

The word ‘decolonisation’¹ is immediately associated with the historical process of former colonies gaining political independence. The word is, nonetheless, ambiguous. In the nineteen-sixties, decolonisation referred to a political process often characterised by violence, which led to the establishment of a local colonial order, without disturbing the underlying power structures. Today, the difficulty with the ‘localisation’ of humanitarian aid can be seen as a reproduction of that same pattern: we attempt to set up local representation for an inequitable system that is not fundamentally changed.

Does the term ‘decolonisation’ mean the same thing to us when we use it and to the countries concerned (former colonies)? How can we analyse the denunciation by humanitarian actors of the colonisation of aid when they do not have anything like the same historical experience, and probably do not have the same issues in mind when they speak of neocolonialism, the western-centred approach, the ‘White Saviour’² or North-South relations? Semantic choices are never neutral. It is essential to understand the implications of such choices if we are to have a fair, effective relationship with the people affected by humanitarian crises.

We experience deep unease when we find authoritarian or reactionary voices instrumentalising decolonial terminology and appropriating it for their own ends. The neocolonialism or the coloniality of humanitarian aid can in fact be used paradoxically, to undermine the credibility of feminist viewpoints, or the defence of LGBT rights, or the protection of people who are highly marginalised within their own countries.

How can we deal with the semantic contradiction exemplified by an activist at the Cameroon AfraVIH (translator’s note: VIH = HIV) conference calling for the decolonisation of the fight against HIV³, when the Cameroon government considers the protection of LBGT rights as a ‘colonial influence’? How can we explain that armed anticolonial forces in India have today become militia that oppress their country’s Muslim population⁴? How can we address the perverse perspective by which representatives of native peoples, or anticolonial militants − in the French DOM-TOMs, for example – play a part in the Baku initiative⁵, which is orchestrated by Azerbaijan?

It is crucial to work out how to escape from the postcolonial guilt trap which obliges us to acknowledge accusations by dictators or authoritarian governments of importing western values, while we try to resist pressure to deny the burden of the colonial legacy or the perpetuation of inequalities that this legacy entails.

Is the concept of decolonisation appropriate in the face of today’s geopolitical, humanitarian and climatic challenges⁶? This is the key question as we attempt to steer a course in an increasingly complex global landscape.

Who is it, in fact, that talks of colonialism? Does discourse on the colonisation of aid have equivalent value no matter who engages in it? Is it a discussion the North has with itself, embarrassed by the postcolonial legacy? How far is it the subject of discourse in the South? Is it only invested in by local NGOs who want to establish a more equitable relationship with international NGOs (we might consider in this context the different ‘open letters’ from Ukrainian or Jordanian NGOs, among others, addressed to international NGOs, denouncing colonial attitudes)? Might it not constitute real progress if we asked for views on the issue from the communities involved – but whose views we do not know? They are unquestionably the most exposed to the coloniality of humanitarian aid via direct interventions on the ground. Do they experience aid provided by a local NGO differently from aid provided by an international NGO? Does an endogenous response entail risks that are specific to power relationships affecting these communities?

How should we react to the ‘travelling model’ described by Olivier de Sardan, i.e., a standardised social engineering intervention devised and extensively exported without any reference to realities on the ground?

How may we resolve the tension between a universalism that has been imposed on us and a cultural relativism that strips our policies of principles, especially moral principles? The principles of progress and equality were fundamental to the colonial project which can be summed up as ethnocentric positivism⁷: our own values and skills are so good that it seems generous to spread them more widely, at the cost of the cultural obliteration of other types of knowledge or skill.

The way humanitarian aid is structured limits, by definition, the services provided: there are constraints of time, management capacity and resources. The concept of the ‘off-the-shelf kit’, claimed as a practical means of ‘scaling up to reach a maximum number’ in fact makes a maximum number ill at ease. The organisation’s very structure makes it necessary to standardise or simplify interventions. Perhaps we might call this the ‘technologisation’ of humanitarian interventions?

The economic model of development aid is in the process of changing. Donor countries no longer shrink from using development aid as a diplomatic lever, or even as a means of punishment⁸. Development professionals must also take care that funds are not used by people or groups classed as terrorists. This politicisation of aid is without question a new form of ‘colonialism’, which calls into question the principle of humanitarian universalism. Interventions are self-interested. Furthermore, capitalist principles introduce among local humanitarian actors the notion of competition, to the extent that they vie with one another to be innovative, to develop projects that are potentially prestigious but whose running costs make them difficult to implement.

There is a consensus around human rights – the rights of man/men, or the rights of women as Olympe de Gouges reminds us – which makes us reject social or cultural evidence which appears to challenge them. In practice, we deal every day with a sort of back-and-forth, often well intentioned, between respect for the values of others and the primacy of values we hold to be universal. Human rights are not as universal as they should be, as the existence of several more specific charters or declarations⁹. Are we prepared to extend – to amend – our idea of individual liberties to take account of a particular group, religion or cultural specificity?

Should the decolonisation of aid be set in the context of these different factors?

Historically, there were three basic pillars of colonisation: the use of armed force, economic exploitation and the imposition of norms, values and skills. This historical frame of reference helps us understand the dynamics of humanitarian aid today, where similar pillars or principles are deployed.

1. Armed force: military intervention has long been a key element in colonisation. Sometimes armed forces have claimed a humanitarian alibi, blurring the distinction between military intervention and humanitarian aid, and compromising both the legitimacy and the security of NGOs.

2. Economic exploitation: colonialism goes hand-in-hand with economic exploitation, often serving as a sort of laboratory of modern capitalism¹⁰. Economic domination continues to shape the relationship between North and South. These days, it is often perpetuated by economic actors from the former colonies. Since the colonial period, continued economic domination by the North (largely European countries as far as Africa is concerned, with France and the UK in the van) has been complicated by an increase in agents of economic domination from the South, especially China and India¹¹. It is nonetheless still the reality, and part of the colonial legacy. The dominant European powers may now have some competition in exploiting resources, but we should note that the new economic actors, China and India among others, obtain exploitation or operating permits in exchange for financing infrastructure projects. A country’s dependence on exploitation by third parties adds to its debt burden, part of the colonial legacy that is unjust, but nonetheless persists. Europe plans to reaffirm its leadership in Africa by means of its ‘Global Gateway’ initiative emphasising private sector investment but omitting the principle of CSO involvement (for example).

3. The imposition of norms, values and skills: the colonial enterprise was characterised by its imposition of western norms and values, justified by the claim that the whole enterprise was a multi-faceted civilising mission. A similar phenomenon has recurred with humanitarian aid where, for example, biomedicine, post-1968 feminism or western management models are regularly imposed on local societies, often at the expense of their own knowledge and skills. However, there should be no question of refusing to base policy on the latest scientific advances, simply for the sake of trying to ‘do the right thing’.

Discussion points and recommendations

To repeat: the way humanitarian aid is structured inevitably limits the services provided. Constraints of time, management capacity and resources often lead to the standardisation of interventions, exemplified by the use of ‘off-the-shelf’ kits. These kits are devised to be practical, with their use readily scaled up as necessary; but they entail simplification, making it difficult to adapt them to the specific requirements of local communities. Implementations intended to respect universal values may not take account of local specificities: there is a risk of involuntary colonialism.

The term ‘decolonisation’ requires careful use. The ‘colonial accusation’ may sometimes be used as a pretext by conservative authorities to call into question fundamental human rights, or to disguise a ‘pseudo-localisation’ which has no real impact on the forces of global domination. NGOs must denounce and refuse this dynamic, especially in countries of the North, even if their influence in those countries is limited. It should be reiterated here that although the term is widely used, its use among or by people who are primarily concerned, as recipients, with humanitarian aid is not well documented. Paradoxically, the term has greater currency, therefore, among the dominating powers.

Admirable though it is to wish to reset the balance of power, the way forward requires us to define boundaries, and take precautions, if there is to be progress. The boundary that probably needs most discussion or revision derives from the fact that current attitudes and interventions tend to be ‘one size fits all’. The humanitarian sector in general neglects local specificities and has difficulty in taking account of elements and factors outside its own format for humanitarian action. Decolonising humanitarian aid entails understanding different situations and places, including local specificities, and finding ways of strengthening endogenous resources by providing solidarity and support for social justice.

The situations and places where we work vary and have not all had the same historical colonial experience or known the same forms of racism. They may be vulnerable to abusive domination within their own boundaries. The political instrumentalisation of postcolonial resentment requires us to be extremely prudent.

Further, the battle against climate change calls, unquestionably, for unprecedented solidarity amongst us all, and explicit recognition of inequality and its causes. We can sum up the latter briefly as: the colonial legacy, capitalism and the mechanics of power. In the light of their policy stance on these issues, NGOs will be able to make a genuine difference in the response to the climate emergency and to humanitarian emergencies.

Recommendations

Our first recommendation is to recall explicitly that while our organisations are based in the North, we are dealing with a globalised system of responsibility for humanitarian situations. We must adopt a clear, strong mode of discourse on the causes of structural inequalities and signal our determination to free the humanitarian aid sector of its colonial origins, challenging the forces which perpetuate current injustices, at micro and macro levels.

To succeed, we must promote community between different peoples or population groupings. We must respect all forms of knowledge that contribute to meeting our objective, with no form predominating. We must draw openly on science and epistemological justice. Thus, our second recommendation is that we must promote the cross-fertilisation of knowledge, investing in research and dialogue with those who have local skills and expertise, and giving a voice to lived knowledge and skills, as ACF has been able to try doing in the community research project R2G¹².

Our final recommendation entails the amendment of both policy stances and practical interventions. Our interventions are made in a complex world where historical domination is no longer the only factor influencing the challenges we face today. We must contextualise our approach, identifying all the forms of domination which hold us back from responding adequately to current challenges. The rise of authoritarian regimes; unbridled capitalism; unchecked extractivism; and the growing social oppression of women, minorities facing discrimination and poor people: all these mitigate against the right to a dignified life in a properly safeguarded environment.

We must better understand the contexts in which we intervene, and work with local partners such as NGOs, activists, affected communities and local experts, aiming above all for a ‘complex universalism’ instead of cultural relativism or a western viewpoint. It is essential to give due consideration to native, lived knowledge and skills, and work together with those directly concerned to find solutions.

Social justice and the safeguarding of the environment cannot be achieved unless local people are involved. This necessitates recourse to the social sciences, to solutions based on nature and culture, and to participative initiatives which take into account the voices of people who are otherwise marginalised. As a result, the entire narrative is transformed: we move from ‘localisation’ to ‘contextualisation’; we prefer ‘fellow actors’’ to ‘beneficiaries’; and we evolve from ‘partnership’ towards ‘alliance’; and we aim to turn ‘decolonisation’ into ‘shared struggles for emancipation’.

To sum up: let us set our work in context so that we can avoid the traps of dogma. Let us use our financial resources to build together with the people most affected a world which is both more egalitarian and more liveable. Let us proclaim aloud together our determination to break down all the different harmful powers that be: those that are a legacy of colonial history, and those that are the result of structural and economic inequalities today.

Maximising the commitment and participation of affected communities and individuals is a theoretical, moral and operational solution to decolonising and localising solidarity.

Myriam Aït-Aïssa, Head of Research & Analysis Department, Action contre la faim

Carine Magen-Fabregat, Social and Community Approaches Advisor / Research & Analysis Service, Action contre la faim

Pierre Alexandre Maiziere, Head Advocacy «Civil Society», Action contre la faim

1. Methodology: We conducted a review of 42 academic papers by international and national/local NGOs, and donors. We also reviewed discussions in the media and by journalists. We attempted thereby to identify trends of thought and semantic choices adopted by the authors of the material reviewed, and also to organise, or classify, the topic as a whole. The objective of our research project is to think about decoloniality – decolonisation – in terms of the key themes raised in the source material: funding, partnership, language and communication, gender and feminism, racism. This approach leads to operational recommendations, which are grouped according to the three transversal axes of values, knowledge and power.
2. In French, ‘le Sauveur Blanc’.
3. DiscoursSerge.pdf(coalitionplus.org).
4. Le nationalisme hindou: histoire et fonctionnement’. Conflits : Revue de Géopolitique. (revueconflits.com).
5. https://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/memoires-du-colonialisme/article/231223/le-siecle-de-nos-decolonisations-le-groupe-initiative-de-baku-2
6. The authors of Critique de la raison décoloniale show that decolonial theories offer a simplistic reading of power relationships: they focus on questions of ethnic or racial identity, consigning the fundamental opposition rich/poor to the background.
7. https://msf-crash.org/fr/rencontres-debats/le-colonialisme-un-projet-humanitaire
8. In Mali, the French government’s withholding of funds from NGOs harms civilians. See https://www.courierinternational.com/article/analyse-au-mali-l-interdiction-des-ong-a-financements-francais-pese-sur-les-populations-civiles#:~:text=Le%2016%20novembre%2C%20Paris%20a,urgence%20et%20l'action%20humanitaire
9. African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, Arab Charter on Human Rights, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Bangkok Declaration on Human Rights, Andean Charter for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, etc.
10. Witness plantation society, which has been described as the first economic model of modern capitalism, with the trade in Black people constituting the capital which financed the industrial revolution in the North. Eric Williams. Capitalism and Slavery. University of North Carolina Press: 1994.
11. Use of the proper name ‘India’ may be considered as an element of the colonial legacy. The Indian government therefore suggests the name ‘Bharat’ instead. The suggested change of name does not meet with universal approval, since it might be taken to imply a refusal to recognise the Mongolian Muslims who settled on the sub-continent 300 years ago. See https://fr.euronews.com/culture/2023/09/11/linde-rebaptisee-bharat-voici-pourquoi-certains-pays-changent-de-nom
12. Recherche locale pour le plaidoyer/ Accueil. (right2grow.org).