Column by Alex Shaner
Every international disaster prompts governments and international organizations to request resources for aid and support of the victims.
The requests from national leaders such as the president or international leaders such as Ban-Ki Moon, the secretary-general of the United Nations, to help the victims of disasters worldwide provides an interesting topic of debate.
Who should take the lead in providing and coordinating aid and response to various disasters?
Previously, this column has debated the use and feasibility of international organizations in security and defense.
However, I believe that the primary actor and coordinator in providing global relief should be international organizations such as the United Nations and the many affiliate groups.
While there is room for national actors to provide aid and support for victims, I believe the institutional arrangements and advantages of international bodies allows for a quicker response and a direct avenue to funnel aid and resources.
National governments, while not necessarily withholding aid, can stipulate where the aid goes and how it should be used.
There is some benefit in assuring countries their aid is actually going to the victims.
National governments can use this stipulation in a political manner.
The U.S. currently gives military assistance with aid providing for large trucks and other vehicles to support clean up efforts.
China and other nations have resoundingly objected to the influx of U.S. military vehicles and personnel to aid in humanitarian efforts.
Additionally, if the states are the primary unit of providing aid, national economic conditions and budget requirements could mean that the amount of aid is reduced.
During times of economic downturn, many nations slash budgets with foreign aid taking the brunt of most cuts.
By allowing national governments the primary role in humanitarian aid efforts, the free-rider problem is present.
If other nations aren’t submitting aid, why should my country?
This attitude plagues any collective action effort in the international community.
By dispensing aid through the United Nations, nations already contribute yearly to the budget, which ensures that aid is not cut off by the problems of the free rider or by budget constraints.
While it is true that governments can withhold U.N. dues, the likelihood of nations withholding their entire contribution is very small.
This allows for a somewhat guarantee of resources and funds for helping with humanitarian efforts.
By using the U.N. as the primary actor in international aid efforts, the efforts can be streamlined and respond quickly.
The U.N. has many agencies and partnerships with private actors and non-governmental organizations to identify problems and how to best address humanitarian crises.
My opinion is that the U.N. should take the primary role in international responses to humanitarian crises such as environmental disasters.
While national governments have an important role to play, I believe that institutionally, the U.N. provides a more stable and secure avenue for addressing various problems.
It guarantees that aid is provided without significant budget requirements and unnecessary stipulations by national governments.
Shaner is a senior international relations and politics double major and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Column by Alec Hamilton
From the internationally acclaimed Red Cross to donation cups at your local grocery store, people all around the world are being asked to donate to the people of the Philippines who were devastated by one of the largest storms in history.
This brings to mind the questions of how such donations will get to their intended recipients. Many people will donate, and a large amount of money will be raised through private relief agencies, but it will take time to assemble those donations and organize their delivery.
So how can aid reach the Philippines or other affected areas quickly and in substantial amounts? The two main alternatives left are aid from individual countries and aid from the United Nations.
In the aftermath of a disaster like the one that devastated the Philippines, countries who have the ability to and will send aid play a much more crucial role and are much more effective than the quick-response efforts of the U.N.
I do not deny that the United Nations’ aid and development programs are top notch. This is one of the few areas where it truly excels and is vastly more capable than the rest of the world.
However, those great efforts unfortunately take more time than many victim countries have in the face of disaster. The U.N. often moves slower than single actors simply because it is a collaboration along many fronts, which takes time to coordinate.
Its organization skills and capabilities to raise and transport mass amounts of aid are unprecedented but take time to get going. With victims having only a few days’ worth of food and clean water, as well as often a lack of power, aid needs to reach the affected areas quickly. The best way to achieve this is through individual countries.
Why are individual countries the most capable of providing quick and significant amounts of aid? For one, the country’s executive often can make a quick decision to send aid, without having to consult their legislative branches, especially here in the U.S.
Also, who is seriously going to oppose ending aid to a storm-ravaged country? More importantly, these countries have navies and/or air forces that can be redirected or summoned to respond quickly to help in search and rescue efforts, maintain order, and transport the essentials such as food, water, and infrastructure. Yes, politics can get involved and muddle things, but in the direct aftermath not even the politicians have time to interfere. It is in the direct aftermath that countries like the U.S. and China make a critical difference in saving lives, while the U.N. helps the country rebuild.
Hamilton is a senior international relations and news-Internet double major and can be reached at email@example.com