Summary Of The Book 'Humanitarian Placebo' By Lischer
1. “Lischer introduces three types of military-humanitarian interactions: “humanitarian soldiers,” “aid workers as government agents,” and “humanitarian placebo.” What are the key features of these three types of militarized aid? What are their potential implications for aid organizations and their intended beneficiaries?”
“Humanitarian soldiers”- Involving the military in the provision of aid can grow stability and help make allies with other countries. It can also strengthen government authority. An intervention is disputed less when the military answers back without using any force. One example from the Lischer reading is the US armed forces were stationed to Mozambique in the year 2008 to help assist those that were victims of a flood. …show more content…
The governments describe the struggles or conflicts as humanitarian dilemmas as taking action while also avoiding involvement from the military and government. Political disconnections by strong donors make it a strong chance that militants will misuse aid for military and political reasons.
“ Humanitarian Placebo” took place in Sudan and in the Lischer reading it says since the beginning of 2003, bad politics, economics, and uncertainty displaced about two million individuals and killed over thousands. Political groups that use armed conflict have assaulted citizens for getting economic and political power. Powell the security of state in the US claimed that Arabic forces were carrying out and organizing genocide against African residents in Darfur Sudan. The response to this conflict or situation has been in a humanitarian way.
2. “Both Lischer and Valentino examine the potential consequences of militarized humanitarian intervention. What are the main arguments in favor of this approach to humanitarian aid? What are the arguments against it? Which do you find most
“Humanitarian soldiers”- Involving the military in the provision of aid can grow stability and help make allies with other countries. It can also strengthen government authority. An intervention is disputed less when the military answers back without using any force. One example from the Lischer reading is the US armed forces were stationed to Mozambique in the year 2008 to help assist those that were victims of a flood. …show more content…
The governments describe the struggles or conflicts as humanitarian dilemmas as taking action while also avoiding involvement from the military and government. Political disconnections by strong donors make it a strong chance that militants will misuse aid for military and political reasons.
“ Humanitarian Placebo” took place in Sudan and in the Lischer reading it says since the beginning of 2003, bad politics, economics, and uncertainty displaced about two million individuals and killed over thousands. Political groups that use armed conflict have assaulted citizens for getting economic and political power. Powell the security of state in the US claimed that Arabic forces were carrying out and organizing genocide against African residents in Darfur Sudan. The response to this conflict or situation has been in a humanitarian way.
2. “Both Lischer and Valentino examine the potential consequences of militarized humanitarian intervention. What are the main arguments in favor of this approach to humanitarian aid? What are the arguments against it? Which do you find most