Abstract
The international humanitarian system is an important site of global governance with efforts by many different actors to respond to the severe humanitarian challenges the world faces. These actors generate political will and commitment to cooperate, as well as construct norms and practices in the conduct of humanitarian action. These umbrella terms are collectively known as humanitarian diplomacy. The most recent high-profile example of humanitarian diplomacy was on display at the World Humanitarian Summit convened in 2016. The event brought participants from around the globe representing different countries and other actors in the humanitarian space, which culminated in An Agenda for Humanity that provided direction for reform of the global humanitarian system that is under strain with the increasingly complex humanitarian situations facing humanity today. Given the ramifications of humanitarian challenges for global governance, the complex dynamics unfolding in the humanitarian system, and the utility of humanitarian action for national foreign policy, humanitarian diplomacy deserves scholarly attention.
The research on humanitarian diplomacy sits at the intersection of the literature on global governance, humanitarian affairs, and foreign policy studies. Despite the long history of international humanitarian action, however, the concept of humanitarian diplomacy is relatively new and remains contested. The literature on humanitarian diplomacy remains limited, demonstrating its recent appearance in global affairs. This special issue contributes to the conceptual development of humanitarian diplomacy by providing perspectives from the Asia-Pacific region, which has been a site of humanitarian diplomacy and home to important actors in the international humanitarian system. It seeks to fill the gap regarding the dominance of Euro-centric perspectives on humanitarian diplomacy and humanitarianism more broadly by providing a platform for scholars, and particularly new and emerging scholars, from the Asia-Pacific to engage in a debate that impacts the lives of many beyond European and North American shores. This special issue examines how countries in the Asia-Pacific engage and cooperate in humanitarian action, as well as where the humanitarian element is located and constructed in their respective foreign policy and national consciousness, which will contribute to a more global discussion on the concept, giving voices to those in the Asia-Pacific. The articles in this special issue seek to address the following common questions: what constitutes humanitarianism? Which factors drive states’ humanitarian action? How is humanitarian diplomacy related to other elements of a state's foreign policy? Where do countries in the Asia-Pacific stand in the international humanitarian order? How do people in the Asia-Pacific engage, and under what conditions, in humanitarian action? By answering these questions, this special issue presents the motivations of and the approaches to the channels and norms preferred by countries in the Asia-Pacific to conduct humanitarian action, and thus adds to a more nuanced understanding of humanitarian diplomacy.
Humanitarian diplomacy: A contested concept
While various United Nations (UN) bodies like the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) have well-known engagement in specific activities of humanitarian diplomacy such as negotiations for access to affected populations as well as the mobilization of emergency relief aid, the organizations have not developed a formal definition to represent diplomatic efforts in this area. The humanitarian and scholarly communities have adopted the expression ‘humanitarian diplomacy’ since the 2000s, yet a unified definition remains elusive (Regnier, 2011). The most widely circulated definitions of humanitarian diplomacy are the versions of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) (Egeland, 2013: 3). Despite the differences, the definitions of these two humanitarian agencies converge on influencing key stakeholders through peaceful means like persuasion and negotiation for the humanitarian imperative.
However, the definitions that are premised on the work of particular humanitarian organizations leave questions unanswered as to how to categorize the activities undertaken by other actors like inter-governmental agencies, regional organizations, and national governments to provide and promote protection and assistance for communities threatened or affected by disaster and conflict worldwide. Humanitarian diplomacy is underpinned by the humanitarian principles of a commitment to humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and operational independence. However, national governments are partial and political in nature. Hence, diplomatic activities by states in relation to humanitarian affairs are sometimes viewed with suspicion. The debates over the COVID-19 diplomacy by countries such as China are reflective of the tension between humanitarianism and national interest (Kobierecka and Kobierecki, 2021; Ryan, 2021). This gives rise to the question over whether a state conducts diplomacy in a humanitarian spirit or uses humanitarianism as a tool to promote national interests (O’Hagan, 2016: 663–667). Even intergovernmental organizations like the UN and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) consist of member states, and it is difficult to eliminate politics despite the development of the, albeit vague, concept of “Good Offices” of the UN Secretary-General all the way down to UN field offices, and the position of the ASEAN Secretary-General and Secretariat.
Beyond the conceptual debate, humanitarian diplomacy does provide a useful lens to understand the strategy of different actors engaged in humanitarian affairs. This special issue draws a broader understanding of humanitarian diplomacy and refers to the concept as activities to maximize support for operations and programs, build the partnerships necessary to reach those in need, and construct principles and norms that guide humanitarian action (Lamb, cited in Regnier, 2011: 1212). For states, humanitarian diplomacy is useful for enhancing cooperation and to project a benign image and build positive momentum in relationships (O’Hagan, 2016: 663).
Key issues: Insights from the Asia-Pacific
Despite the recognition that disasters and conflicts can generate similar degrees of humanitarian need, the global humanitarian system remains dominated by conflict settings over disasters reflective of the dominance of conflict-affected populations over those displaced by disasters worldwide. Although humanitarian assistance in disasters is less controversial than in conflicts, there are different challenges and issues. With the greatest global exposure to natural hazards, and where disaster settings dominate conflict settings, the Asia-Pacific provides an important site to observe how bilateral and multilateral diplomacy can contribute to protecting vulnerable communities in disaster settings, which includes not only guaranteeing humanitarian access and mobilizing relief aid but also contributing to local capacity-building and norm-setting. There have been regional cases of successful humanitarian negotiations by UN agencies, ASEAN, and national governments of the countries in the region to open humanitarian access to the communities affected by disaster, as in the case of Cyclone Nargis in 2008 (Cook, 2018).
While the humanitarian spirit is universal, the understanding of humanitarianism and approaches to humanitarian diplomacy is contextualized by factors such as culture, religion, and local norms. As aforementioned, questions arise in the international humanitarian community over the neutrality and impartiality of state actors in conducting humanitarian diplomacy. That said, many countries in the Asia-Pacific uphold the primary role of government and have reservations about NGOs (O’Hagan, 2016: 662). As a result, persuasion and influence in regional organizations like ASEAN and national governments in the region are more acceptable. Moreover, the Asia-Pacific countries generally appreciate the security-development-peace nexus and this leads to the preference of some countries for framing their humanitarian aid as developmental assistance. Many humanitarian organizations, however, are concerned about the conflation of humanitarian action and development work and emphasize the differences between the two.
The international humanitarian system has witnessed the emergence of the Asia-Pacific, with countries like China and Indonesia having strengthened their international aid programs. Humanitarian action is not a traditional or, until recently, an explicit component of these countries’ foreign policy. This stands in contrast to traditional donors like Australia that generally identify with the humanitarian principles and use humanitarian diplomacy to constitute their identity and promote their values internationally (O’Hagan, 2016: 663). The emergence of new donors and actors in this regard creates opportunities for promoting different norms and practices, which will influence the direction of the evolving international humanitarian system.
This special issue is the first of a two-part series that examines how Australia, China, Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, and ASEAN understand and conduct humanitarian diplomacy. In the current issue, Cook investigates the emerging role of ASEAN as a humanitarian platform and how the experience of natural hazards offers an important reference for ASEAN's humanitarian work in other areas, notably health emergencies and conflict settings. Cook argues that ASEAN needs to move beyond the regional and national levels to the sub-national level to complete the journey of localization, concluding that there are no guarantees that this journey is unidirectional or will continue. McDougall demonstrates the tensions between ‘humanitarianism as diplomacy’ and ‘humanitarian diplomacy’ through Australia's humanitarian action amid natural hazards and the COVID-19 pandemic in the South Pacific. He argues that Australia's conduct of humanitarian diplomacy is influenced by domestic factors like politics and bureaucracy and external factors like relations with the host country and competition with other international players.
Gong assesses humanitarian action as an instrument for China to project a benign image, with a focus on Beijing's diplomatic offensive in Southeast Asia during the COVID-19 pandemic. She argues that the outcome of China's image-building through humanitarian activities is influenced by the severity of the crisis, the national response of the affected country, and the perceived legitimacy of China's action. Peng uses recent evidence from China's involvement in Nepal's disaster management to demonstrate new trends in China's humanitarian diplomacy, which features increasing assistance and the emerging role of non-state actors. He argues that national interests and the state of the bilateral relationship with the affected countries are important factors shaping China's humanitarian action.
In the next issue, Gomez explains why Japan has been at the periphery of the international humanitarian system. He advances two explanations for Japan's peripheral standing: its difficulty in adapting to the humanitarian institutions that are dominated by western norms and values, and its strength and preference for an integral approach to humanitarian crises through multiple international cooperation means. Marzuki and Tiola discuss Indonesia's perspectives and scope of humanitarian engagement, which include providing emergency relief in conflict and non-conflict settings as well as participating in UN peacekeeping operations. They argue that Indonesia's own struggle with disasters and its identity as a member of ASEAN and a Muslim-majority country are key factors shaping its conduct of humanitarian diplomacy. Trajano examines the humanitarian diplomacy conducted in the context of the US–Philippine security alliance. He argues that the Philippines’ evolving norms of disaster management have broadly influenced the US’ humanitarian diplomacy for the Philippines, which increasingly puts further emphasis on disaster preparedness, community resilience, and local capability. He demonstrates the agency of a country affected by natural hazards in shaping the relationship with its most important assistance provider, the United States. Atienza and Quilala examine the role of NGOs in the localization of humanitarian diplomacy in the Philippines in conflict and disaster settings through two cases, namely Typhoon Haiyan in 2013 and the Marawi crisis in 2017. Their article focuses on how NGOs mobilize their networks, resources, and links in housing and livelihood projects to assist the affected communities as a lived experience of humanitarian diplomacy in action.
Conclusion
As more countries from the Asia-Pacific have increased commitment to and presence in humanitarian action, it is under-represented in the international humanitarian system, therefore perspectives and practices of humanitarian diplomacy from the region deserve scholarly attention. The articles in this two-part special issue provide inspiration for readers to ponder what humanitarian diplomacy is in the context of the Asia-Pacific. The discussions in this collection of articles highlight three broad observations. First, realpolitik and self-image influence states’ humanitarian action. Second, the framing of and approach to humanitarian diplomacy are contextualized by national and regional conditions. Third, domestic factors like bureaucracy, institutions, and capacity affect a state's conduct of humanitarian diplomacy. These findings lay the groundwork for the further examination of domestic sources of humanitarian diplomacy and comparative studies of humanitarian diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific, with implications for, and a corrective to, the dominant Euro-centric narratives in the global humanitarian system.