Advertisement

Alte und neue staatliche Geber: Auf dem Weg zu einem universellen humanitären System?

  • Andrea Binder
  • Alexander Gaus
  • Claudia Meier
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Die globalen Machtverschiebungen zwischen dem Westen auf der einen Seite und Asien, Lateinamerika und Teilen Afrikas auf der anderen Seite haben die humanitäre Hilfe erfasst. Gelder für Nothilfeoperationen kommen nicht länger nur aus Nordamerika und Europa. Mit Brasilien, Indien, Saudi-Arabien und der Türkei als neue humanitäre Geber wandelt sich die humanitäre Hilfe von einem westlich dominierten zu einem globalen System. Ein konstruktiver Austausch, Kooperation und Koordination zwischen alten und neuen staatlichen Gebern kommt allerdings nur langsam in Gang, da Vorurteile den Diskurs weitgehend prägen. Wer genauer hinsieht, bemerkt jedoch, dass die wesentlichen normativen Konfliktlinien – wie etwa die Frage, ob humanitäre Hilfe rein von den Prinzipien der Menschlichkeit, Neutralität, Unabhängigkeit und Unparteilichkeit geleitet werden sollte oder auch als Instrument zur Durchsetzung politischer Interessen genutzt werden kann – nicht entlang der Grenzen zwischen alten und neuen Gebern verlaufen. Vielmehr ziehen sie sich quer durch beide Gruppen. Das Kapitel analysiert das Verhalten von einigen traditionellen Gebern (USA, Europäische Kommission, England, Frankreich und Schweden) und neuen Gebern (u. a. Saudi-Arabien, die Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate, Indien, Brasilien, China und die Türkei). Es diskutiert ihre Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede bezüglich eingesetzter Ressourcen, verfolgter Ziele und zugrunde liegender Normen. Auf dieser Grundlage skizziert das Kapitel Trends für das humanitäre System der Zukunft.

Literatur

  1. Al-Yahya K, Fustier N (2011) Saudi Arabia as a humanitarian donor: high potential, little institutionalization. Global Public Policy Institute, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. Aynte A (2012) Turkey’s role in Somalia: a new ally? http://changingturkey.com/2012/04/13/turkeys-role-in-somalia-a-new-ally-2/. Zugegriffen: 17. Sept. 2012
  3. Barrett CB, Maxwell D (2005) Food aid after fifty years. Recasting its role. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Binder A, Conrad B (2009) China’s potential role in humanitarian assistance. Global Public Policy Institute, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. Binder A, Grünewald F (2010) Inter-agency real-time evaluation in Haiti: 3 months after the earthquake. Global Public Policy Institute, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  6. Binder A, Meier C (2011) Opportunity knocks: why non-Western donors enter humanitarianism and how to make the best of it. Int Rev Red Cross 93 (884):1135–1149Google Scholar
  7. Binder A, Meier C, Steets J (2010) Humanitarian assistance: truly universal? A mapping study of non-Western donors. Global Public Policy Institute, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. Castañeda JG (2011) Good times down Latin America’s way. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/good-times-down-latin-america-s-way. Zugegriffen: 28. Aug. 2012
  9. CGFOME (2010) Assistencia Humanitária. Relatório Orcamentário da Acao 2d28 Janeiro a Setembro de 2010Google Scholar
  10. DARA (2009) The humanitarian response index 2009: whose crisis? Clarifying donor’s priorities. DARA, MadridGoogle Scholar
  11. DARA (2010) The humanitarian response index 2010: the problems of politicisation. DARA, MadridGoogle Scholar
  12. DARA (2011a) The humanitarian response index 2011: addressing the gender challenge. DARA, MadridGoogle Scholar
  13. DARA (2011b) Inter-agency real time evaluation of the humanitarian response to the 2010 floods in Pakistan. DARA, MadridGoogle Scholar
  14. Development Inititatives (2011) Emergency response funds (ERFs). Profile. Development Initiatives, SomersetGoogle Scholar
  15. Development Inititatives (2012) GHA report 2012. Development Initiatives, SomersetGoogle Scholar
  16. Development Inititatives (ohne Datum-a) Saudi Arabia. Country profile (eigene Berechnung). www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/countryprofile/saudi-arabia. Zugegriffen: 10. Sept. 2012
  17. Development Inititatives (ohne Datum-b) Turkey. Country profile. http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/countryprofile/turkey. Zugegriffen: 10. Sept. 2012
  18. Development Inititatives (ohne Datum-c) United Arab Emirates. Country profile (eigene Berechnung). http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/countryprofile/united-arab-emirates. Zugegriffen: 10. Sept. 2012
  19. DFID (2011a) Humanitarian emergency response review. Department for International Development, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. DFID (2011b) Saving lives, preventing suffering and building resilience: the UK government’s humanitarian policy. Department for International Development, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. DoS (2011) The first quadrennial diplomacy and development review (QDDR): leading through civilian power. U.S. Department of State, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  22. ECHO (ohne Datum) Framework partnership agreement with humanitarian organisations (2008–2012). http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/humanitarian_aid/r10007_en.htm. Zugegriffen: 1. Nov. 2012
  23. Ferris E (2011) 9/11 and humanitarian assistance: a disturbing legacy. http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2011/09/01-sept11-ferris. Zugegriffen: 7. Sept. 2012
  24. Gaus A, Mathys C, Steets J (2012) Food assistance policy and institutions in the United States and European Union. In: Barrett CB, Binder A, Steets J (Hrsg) Uniting on food assistance. The case for transatlantic cooperation. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Geoffroy VD, Robyns A (2009) Emerging humanitarian donors: the Gulf States. Humanitarian Aid on the move. Groupe URD Newsletter (3)Google Scholar
  26. GPPi (2012) Brazilian humanitarian assistance 2004–2012. Unveröffentlichter Datensatz, eigene Erhebung. Global Public Policy Institute, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  27. Hanlon J, Hulme D, Barrientos A (2010) Just give money to the poor. The development revolution from the global south. Kumarin Press, SterlingGoogle Scholar
  28. Harmer A, Cotterrell L (2005) Diversity in donorship. The changing landscape of official humanitarian aid. Overseas Development Institute (ODI), LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Harmer A, Martin E (2010) Diversity in donorship: field lessons. Overseas Development Institute (ODI), LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Harvey P (2009) Towards good humanitarian government: the role of the affected state in disaster response. Overseas Development Institute (ODI), LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Hirono M (2012a) Why does China behave differently from traditional donors? Three legacies of humanitarianism in China. Disasters (i. E.)Google Scholar
  32. Hirono M (2012b) China as humanitarian donor. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript. Global Public Policy Institute, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  33. Human Rights Watch (2012) Syria: government attacking bread lines. http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/08/30/syria-government-attacking-bread-lines. Zugegriffen: 18. Sept. 2012
  34. Hürriyet (2012) At least 400 million spent on Syrian refugees: Turkish minister. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/at-least-400-million-spent-on-syrian-refugees-turkish-minister.aspx?pageID=238&nID=32528&NewsCatID=338. Zugegriffen: 21. Nov. 2012
  35. IKRK (2011) Annual report 2010. Internationales Komitee vom Roten Kreuz, GenfGoogle Scholar
  36. IKRK (2012) Annual report 2011. Internationales Komitee vom Roten Kreuz, GenfGoogle Scholar
  37. Madzimbamuto-Ray K (2012) Africa’s jobless growth? http://allafrica.com/stories/201207190370.html. Zugegriffen: 29. Aug. 2012
  38. MEA (2011) India-Haiti bilateral relations. India ministry of external affairs. http://www.indembassyhavana.org/?q=en/node/26. Zugegriffen: 14. Sept. 2012
  39. Meier C, Murthy CSR (2011) India’s growing involvement in humanitarian assistance. Global Public Policy Institute, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  40. MFA (2010) Saving lives and alleviating suffering. Policy for Sweden’s humanitarian assistance 2010–2016. Ministry for Foreign Affairs, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  41. MFA (2012) Stratégie humanitaire de la République Francaise. Le ministère des Affaires étrangères, ParisGoogle Scholar
  42. Ministério das Relações Exteriores (ohne Datum) Relatório de Assistência Humanitária Coordenação-Geral de Ações Internacionais de Combate à Fome 2006–2009. Grupo de Trabalho Interministerial sobre Assistência Humanitária InternacionalGoogle Scholar
  43. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey (ohne Datum) Humanitarian assistance by Turkey. http://www.mfa.gov.tr/humanitarian-assistance-by-turkey.en.mfa. Zugegriffen: 4. Okt. 2012
  44. Mowjee T, Randel J (2010) Evaluation of Sida’s humanitarian assistance. Final synthesis report. Development Initiatives, SomersetGoogle Scholar
  45. OCHA (2012a) Consolidated appeal process in 2012. http://fts.unocha.org/pageloader.aspx?page=emerg-emergencies&section=CE&year=2012. Zugegriffen: 19. Sept. 2012
  46. OCHA (2012b) Financial tracking service. Office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs (eigene Berechnung). New York, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  47. OCHA (2012c) Financial tracking service. Somalia 2011. Table B: total humanitarian assistance per bonor (appeal plus other*) as of 24-September-2012. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. OCHA (2012e) United nations central emergency response fund. 2011 Annual report summary. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. OECD (2008) France. Development assistance committee (DAC) Peer review. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  50. OECD (2009) Sweden. Development assistance committee (DAC) Peer review. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  51. OECD (2011) The United States. Development assistance committee (DAC) Peer review 2011. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  52. OECD (2012) Creditor reporting system Full (eigene Berechnung). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  53. Ozkececi-Taner B (2013) Turkish foreign policy: bridge, buffer, and barrier. In: Beasley RK et al (Hrsg) Foreign policy in comparative perspective. Domestic and international influences on state behavior. CQ Press, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  54. Palmes S (2012) The rise of new actors in humanitarian assistance. Joining the club or marking the difference? Brazil’s ambivalent role as emerging donors. Albert-Ludwigs-University, Freiburg i. Br.Google Scholar
  55. Presidência da República Federativa do Brasil (ohne Datum) Fome zero. http://www.fomezero.gov.br/. Zugegriffen: 1. Nov. 2012
  56. Reinicke W (2012) Purpose beyond power. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/purpose-beyond-power. Zugegriffen: 29. Aug. 2012
  57. Roxburgh C, Dörr N, Leke A, Tazi-Riffi A, Wamelen Av, Lund S, Chironga M, Alatovik T, Atkins C, Terfous N, Zeino-Mahmalat T (2010) Lions on the move: the progress and potential of African economies. McKinsey Global Institute, EgyptGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith K (2011) Non-DAC donors and humanitarian aid. Shifting structure, changing trends. Development Initiatives, SomersetGoogle Scholar
  59. Steets J (2009) From B-envelopes to the F-bureau. Understanding Transatlantic Approaches to Humanitarian Assistance. In: Steets J, Hamilton DS (Hrsg) Humanitarian assistance. Improving U.S.-European cooperation. Center for Transatlantic Relations/Global Public Policy Institute, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  60. Stünkel O, Mello E (i. E.) Brazil as humanitarian donor. Global Public Policy Institute, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  61. UAE (2011) United Arab Emirates foreign aid 2010. UAE Office for the Coordination of Foreign Aid, Abu DhabiGoogle Scholar
  62. UAE Interact (ohne Datum) Humanitarian Aid. http://www.uaeinteract.com/government/development_aid.asp. Zugegriffen: 4. Okt. 2012
  63. UNIDO (2011) Africa investor report 2011. Towards evidence-based investment promotion stratetegies. United Nations Industrial Development Organization, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  64. UNRWA (2011) Brazil contributes US$ 960,000 and announces a further donation of US$ 7.5 million to UNRWA. http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=1193. Zugegriffen: 12. Sept. 2012
  65. USAID (2006) Administration of assistance awards to U.S. non-governmental organizations; marking requirements. 22 C.F.R. Part 226. United States Agency for International Development, Washington D.C.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi)BerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations