ABSTRACT
In the past few decades, European governments and civil society have also been strong proponents of establishing measures of accountability in global humanitarian assistance programs. They have played leading roles in the development of standards for humanitarian response, beginning with the standards set out in the SPHERE Handbook, first published in 2000 and updated regularly thereafter. The SPHERE Handbook sets out minimum standards for care in key life-saving sectors, such as water supply, sanitation and hygiene promotion; food security and nutrition; shelter, settlement and non-food items; and health action. European governments and NGOS have also played leading roles in the development of the consensus based Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability which, based on input from thousands of humanitarian workers and long consultations, sets out commitments that organizations can use to improve the quality and effectiveness of the assistance they provide. The Core Humanitarian Standard focuses very much on the rights of those affected by conflict and disasters and emphasizes “the right to life with dignity, and the right to protection and security as set forth in international law, including within the International Bill of Human Rights.”
Eighteen months after the advent of the “migrant crisis” in Europe, thousands of people are stranded in squalid conditions after some European countries closed their borders, and EU member states argue over whose responsibility the refugees are. Despite the successes in some countries, which generously took in and care for thousands of asylum seekers and are providing so many with a chance for a better future, the care for those stranded at borders or in limbo without asylum and without means to go anywhere else, does not meet even the minimum of humanitarian standards, which are provided in camps in Jordan or Sudan or Thailand. Less wealthy countries in other regions that host an even greater proportion of the world’s refugees are watching Europe carefully. They are surprised to see that the conditions of those in the Greek camps or on the border of Macedonia are so poor, given the easy availability of logistical, technical and financial resources in European countries. They ask why they are expected to respect humanitarian standards and refugee law when wealthy Europe has chosen not to. Indeed, after the European Union made a deal with Turkey to return refugees now in Greece, Kenya proceeded with plans to close Dadaab camp, the largest refugee camp in the world, and send the Somalis home, using the same arguments the European Union did. Which leads one to ask: Will Europe, the birthplace of modern humanitarianism, also sounds its death knell? This essay provides some context for understanding the specific challenges to humanitarianism in Europe today, as well as the implications for the global humanitarian enterprise.
