a guide to peace support operations - The Watson Institute for ...

Part II, Section 1, paragraph 3
3. The Humanitarian Response Network
a. Characteristics
The first step in understanding the dynamics of international humanitarian
agencies is to comprehend that the UN, bilateral agencies, national authorities,
and nongovernmental organizations are more a network than a system. “Network”
implies no permanent or fixed framework, no coherent or common goals,
and few patterned relationships. Yet it does suggest various functional and
practical linkages that result from operational requirements.
The “international relief network” is a loose system of nonbinding contacts,
sustained by various channels of communication and an awareness of “who is
around.” On a case-by-case basis, components will align themselves as a network
to promote particular interests and work together to assist in relief. However, such
arrangements are rarely enduring, and, when they do occur, create little more than
short-term dependencies.
b. Competition
Diversity and competition underscore the wide network of humanitarian actors
that are in action during an emergency. In theory, each type should be able to
fulfill a function that the other cannot; in practice most situations are more
complicated.
Within the UN system, most agencies involved in humanitarian assistance have
their own sources of funds, procedures, mandates, and individual governing
bodies; the last comprising representatives of individual states. Governing bodies
determine the policies and ultimately the resources for their individual agencies.
They also influence agency goals and in a broader sense agency operations. They
do this with little reference to a wider system beyond their individual agencies.
Consequently, the work of the individual agencies is difficult to harmonize, let
alone coordinate. There are a variety of mechanisms that attempt to facilitate
operational coordination, but in reality the UN system remains a “nation” of
semiautonomous baronies, reluctant to subjugate their individual independence
to a more united vision.
Bilateral donors’ support for humanitarian operations is related to national
interests; this introduces the possibility of significantly different agendas from
their multilateral or nongovernmental colleagues. Donors may not only have
different agendas, but the practical assistance that they might choose to provide
may reflect their institutional capabilities and have nothing to do with the general
consensus toward relief requirements.
34