The integration of humanitarian action into intervention operations, and particularly the inclusion of a military component, carries risks—but none so great as to be worth sacrificing integration on the altar of humanitarian purity. As in the case of Iraq in the first, emergency phase of an operation, humanitarian teams working closely with the combat troops can greatly reduce civilian suffering caused by shock, displacement, and lack of access to necessities of daily life. In the transition phase, as the military begins to turn over power to an independent political authority, integration of development teams is likewise important. Integration in the interest of humanity is no vice. Humanitarian exclusivity in the interest of purity is no virtue. The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration at the State Department is multilateralist in its approach to humanitarian action—because it works.
You may also like

JAN 7, 2021 • Journal
Ethics & International Affairs Volume 34.4 (Winter 2020)
The highlight of this issue is a roundtable organized by Kai He, T. V. Paul and Anders Wivel on international institutions and peaceful change. The ...

NOV 13, 2019 • Podcast
AI in the Arctic: Future Opportunities & Ethical Concerns, with Fritz Allhoff
How can artificial intelligence improve food security, medicine, and infrastructure in Arctic communities? What are some logistical, ethical, and governance challenges? Western Michigan's Professor Fritz ...

OCT 7, 2019 • Podcast
Making AI Work, Ethically & Responsibly, with Heather M. Roff
Heather M. Roff, senior research analyst at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab, thinks some researchers are having the wrong conversations about AI. Instead of ...