Macedonia: A dream coming true.

‘Balkan’ is a word which is made up of two components, meaning ‘honey’ and ‘blood’. It is perhaps a fitting name for a region in which there is so much that is sweet and good, but where there has also been so much bloodshed.

During our recent conference in Skiopje, Macedonia, one Bosnian participant suggested a new name: ‘Balhan’ which would mean ‘honey’ and ‘water’. The participant was expressing a deep wish – a dream that all citizens of the Balkans need to see become a reality: a future of peace and a break with the violence of the past.

The Humanitarian Forum had to fight with that great natural/supernatural force – Iceland’s volcano – to reach skopje, capital of Macedonia. It was a question of travelling through the ashes which were preventing thousands of people from going home. Many of our members from Europe and the Middle East couldn’t make it in person, and there was a time when we had to think seriously about cancelling this long-awaited event.

But in the end, we decided to go ahead – and I am very glad we did. Fifty representatives came together, from the local Civil Society Organisations of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Serbia, Kosovo and Albania. Our ‘Balkano’ meeting seemed like a challenge to the volcano – we were saying ‘you can’t deter us!’ Some of our members still managed to get there from Turkey, Kenya and Iran – I myself took a ten hour car ride from Istanbul with a colleague in order to make the meetings.

The most important aspect of the A HOPE for the Balkans conference was the spirit of dynamic discussion between different ethnic and religious groups. Here was Natasha, a Serbian from Belgrade, leading a mixed group of Muslims from Macedonia and Albania. Jason, who represented World Vision, led another group of Bosnian, Macedonian and Kosovan participants. Amer from ICRC lead another, equally diverse group.

This spirited and dynamic dialogue was most encouraging. To see so many actors from so many areas meet the challenges facing the development of a regional civil society together – to find both collective solutions and answers to the common problems – was inspiring.

One participant told his colleague that this was the first time in his life that they had met together with so many different people. A second representative wondered that he had travelled all the way from Tehran ‘to meet his neighbours’. It seems that for us the continuous process of communication is the foundation of confidence building, which leads to operational engagement of different CSOs from different cities and countries. This communication and operational engagement will be the bedrock of humanitarian partnership – not only in the Balkans but anywhere in the world.

We want to create A HOPE for the Balkans: an Alternative Humanitarian Operational Partnership Engagement between CSOs representing different ethnic and religious groups. This is really the dream that we can make a reality – a new ‘Balhan’ region.

So let the volcano bring ashes – we’ll bring the fire of unity. Let the sky be shadowed with dark clouds – we’ll bring the light of partnership. When the wind competes with us at breakneck speed, our steady determination will win through.

Our Balkano meeting was more dynamic than the Volcano!

Breaking old habits, forging new paths in Somalia

I’ve just returned from a marathon trip. I was away for a month and in that time, I visited (amongst other places) The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Balkans, and Nairobi and Somaliland, where I spent sixteen days with a range of stakeholders, discussing the challenges, successes and obstacles for the humanitarian sector in Somalia.

These days, humanitarian actors are struggling to reach those in need in Somalia; conflict and crisis make access difficult. This was why many of our meetings were held in Nairobi, and many organisations working in the area expressed concerns about the security issues.

One problem seems to be that there’s a set way of working in Somalia: a status quo, which has become a habit. It’s not just there: it's easy for all of us to fall into a comfortable pattern in our humanitarian work: we work a certain way because we’ve always done it that way. It can be comfortable, but it’s not always what’s best for the people in dire need. We need to address this issue before we can jump into creating a comprehensive humanitarian sector.

Over the sixteen days, I attended more than thirty meetings. Participants came from embassies, governments, UN agencies, INGOs, local organisations, and the business sector, to name a few. But we came to this conclusion: still more dialogue is needed if we want to include everyone, in the issue of humanitarian access.

Participants were Muslim and non-Muslim, and we welcomed the participation of local and grass-roots organisations. Many were concerned with personal safety; all accepted that a discussion with all stakeholders - without excluding anyone – was needed in order to ensure humanitarian aid to everyone.

We consider these 16 days the second round of extensive consultations with most of the stakeholders – the first round was our conference in October. In the third round, which will be soon, Insha’Allah, we’ll expand our reach again, this time hoping to reach all stakeholders: to enable more humanitarian organisations to deliver aid material to different and remote areas of Somalia where the need is dire.

We were carrying a purely humanitarian message, to everyone, including governments, organisations, businesses, groups and the international community. We don’t want to be misunderstood or misread. The human need in Somalia is more than the imagination of decision makers can understand. We need to put our humanitarian spirit to the test; to balance our impartiality. If we really claim that we are the champions of the needy, we must take on board that the championship is won by delivering on people’s expectations, not by talking and doing nothing. We must give hope, and remove the conditions that breed radicalisation.

The message of humanitarianism is beyond the scope of politics, tribalism, sectarianism and ‘groupism’, not to mention the religious ‘isms’ that can abound. Since we believe the message of humanitarianism is far more universal than all of these, we have to work collectively to a sustainable solution for the humanitarian catastrophe in Somalia, as well as everywhere else.

The answer is a collective comprehensive effort by all of us, even if some of us will need to implement it on behalf of all. The time for working as individuals is past: all individuals must come together in a common cause, setting aside their differences to address the need collectively, as a community.

Let us discuss serious issues. What do we mean when we talk about security and insecurity? Do we mean the security of the vulnerable community? Do we mean the security of our national field staff? Our international field staff? Do we mean the security of our organisations? Or is it the security of our funds we worry about the most? We need to be very honest about our interests when we claim to be champions of vulnerable people – to go beyond our own partialities, and put local civil society organisations at the centre of our operations. Our first responsibility is not to ourselves, but to the local community.

So we should not give up striving –however many rounds it takes – to create sustainable, ongoing security in the future.

Humanitarianism: The new colonialism?

Talking about colonialism is problematic. People might label me a reactionary or a radical...but since I’m neither, I have to have the courage to open my heart to you, so we all can learn from one another.

The world has been facing numerous emergencies over the past few years. Some were manmade while the rest were natural disasters. The individual humanitarian response was overwhelming – to the point where we as international humanitarian organisations could hardly deliver the dreams and desires of our donors. The last few disasters – the tsunami; Darfur; the Asian earthquake; Yemen – proved that the international community cannot do it alone, even if we had the resources and the expertise.

We’re at a time when we have ample money to respond to disasters. But how do we allocate it? It’s my belief that we need to use some part of this money in building the local infrastructure of Civil Society Organisations in disaster areas. Five years on from the tsunami I’d like to raise a question: How much have we spent on relief, and on capacity building of local civil society, and how much has been drained and wasted because of inefficient delivery and overspending on bringing in our own experts, imported from Country A to Disaster Area B, when we could have utilized the expertise and knowledge of local organisations?

If we’re honest enough to answer such questions, I propose we change the policy of our funding with the intention of building stronger, more independent CSOs in such areas. I propose we ask our governments, institutions and INGOs to allocate 10-15% of funds to the future of local civil society in these areas.

This would be an important step, but funds alone are not enough. If our long term goal is to hand the capability for disaster response over to the local and national organisations, we need to shift our entire attitude. Rather than supporting our own organisations exclusively, our emphasis must be on partnering, training and supporting local humanitarian actors in becoming more effective, sustainable and accountable. In short: treating local actors as equals.

Changing the way we work will take time and investment. It will not happen overnight; rather it will happen over a generation. But by beginning that investment now, we will eventually build a truly global humanitarian society – one which really does ‘think globally and act locally’.

We need to be courageous - to admit that it’s impossible nowadays to respond to these terrible disasters from an international perspective alone, and to admit that it is indeed preferable to reach beneficiaries in their own communities and through their own communities. Because if we don’t work this way, we’re missing the most important players or stakeholders: namely the local civil society organisations, whom we should use as active partners from the time of planning to the process of delivering and monitoring. This could only be done when we change our mindset from a top-down, ‘colonial’ humanitarian approach to a grass roots humanitarian approach.

Our new role should be complementary to the emerging new role of stronger local civil societies. It should not replace them or exclude them. It is for us to be honest enough to step back, and instead empower those people who are already ‘on the ground’ when disaster strikes, and will continue to be there long after our operations have left.
Shall we be a colonial humanitarian movement - or a people’s humanitarian movement?