For upwards of one million people caught in three unfolding humanitarian emergencies, the first two weeks in March have proven tragic. Two of the crises, centered along the Liberia-Côte d’Ivoire border and in Libya, stem from ongoing political violence that has sent over half a million refugees fleeing into neighboring countries ill-equipped to receive them; the other, along Japan’s northeastern coast, was triggered by a 9.0 earthquake that sent waves as high as 49 feet several miles inland, damaging three nuclear facilities in its wake and killing a confirmed 5,178 people beyond the 9,000 to 15,000 who remain missing. Now, in addition to enduring snow and freezing temperatures, affected Japanese populations face a new threat: the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station, which houses three of the damaged reactors, is spewing radioactive steam as power sources needed to cool spent fuel rods have been severed, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the arm of the UN Secretariat responsible for coordinating humanitarian actors in response to emergencies, has reacted vigorously. Since March 2, OCHA has deployed disaster reconnaissance teams, advised and coordinated dozens of UN and non-UN humanitarian agencies, and established $226 million in relief funds, $11 million of which has already been distributed through OCHA’s Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) to jump-start operations.
Yet OCHA’s response efforts, as well as those of other UN humanitarian actors, seem strikingly lopsided: all $226 million in relief funds have been allotted to Libya and Liberia-Côte d’Ivoire to support a veritable UN humanitarian army in the African disaster areas. Among its forces are the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Food Program (WFP), the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and the UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) team.
In sharp contrast to the UN’s African response, Japan’s crisis, which has displaced nearly 500,000 people, is reporting a higher death toll, and now faces the growing threat of nuclear fallout, has received no monetary help from the UN and only limited human resources: a seven-member disaster response team from UNDAC, an expert mission from the IAEA and specialized logistic support from the WFP.
Given the exigent, albeit different, conditions in the three crises, it would seem that the world’s central relief organization (the UN) and the head of its humanitarian arm (OCHA) would respond in a more equitable manner.
The uneven distribution of UN aid is even more striking considering how much each of the countries under consideration contributes to UN humanitarian efforts. As a whole in 2010, Libya, Liberia and Côte d’Ivoire gave $3.29 million in assessed contributions to the UN’s regular budget, which funds the WHO and the FAO. Of the voluntarily-funded humanitarian bodies, such as UNICEF, the WFP and UNHCR, none of the three African countries contributed financially in 2010; neither did they contribute to the CERF, which has provided the refugee crises with $11 million in emergency aid since March 2.
By contrast, Japan last year donated $2 million to the CERF, $265 million to the regular budget, $143 million to UNHCR, $214 million to the WFP and, in 2009, $164 million to UNICEF. Japan is also the second largest contributor to the peacekeeping budget, which will almost certainly deploy missions to help stabilize Libya and Côte d’Ivoire once ceasefires in the countries have been reached. Japan’s contributions to peacekeeping this year alone approach $1 billion.
Although Japan’s crisis is still in its early stages, it is unlikely that OCHA or other UN humanitarian agencies will provide a significant amount of additional assistance. As OCHA’s March 14 press release announcing deployment of the seven-member UNDAC team noted, “the Government of Japan has a very strong disaster preparedness and response mechanism in place and is coordinating the international response effort.”
The latter statement both explains the uneven distribution of UN resources in the three present crises and sheds light on the UN’s overall approach to humanitarian emergencies. Japan, a highly developed country with extensive political, economic and logistical resources of its own, is not only well-prepared to play the role of OCHA in responding to certain humanitarian crises, such as earthquakes or tsunamis, but insistent upon doing so. The Japanese government has continually stated since March 11 that it will request UN aid if and when it feels such assistance is necessary.
However, Libya, Liberia, and Côte d’Ivoire, all developing countries that have not yet acquired the political, economic and logistical capabilities to coordinate humanitarian emergency efforts of the present magnitude, must seek the help of outside relief actors such as the UN. In this particular case, the governments of Côte d’Ivoire and Libya are complicit in the unfolding refugee crises and have little incentive to work toward their resolution. Yet, even if they did have incentive to quell the crises, requisite resources to do so are lacking. Such are the realities, counterintuitive though they may be, of UN humanitarian response efforts across the North-South divide in the 21st century.
a global affairs media network
UN Response to March’s Humanitarian Crises
March 18, 2011
For upwards of one million people caught in three unfolding humanitarian emergencies, the first two weeks in March have proven tragic. Two of the crises, centered along the Liberia-Côte d’Ivoire border and in Libya, stem from ongoing political violence that has sent over half a million refugees fleeing into neighboring countries ill-equipped to receive them; the other, along Japan’s northeastern coast, was triggered by a 9.0 earthquake that sent waves as high as 49 feet several miles inland, damaging three nuclear facilities in its wake and killing a confirmed 5,178 people beyond the 9,000 to 15,000 who remain missing. Now, in addition to enduring snow and freezing temperatures, affected Japanese populations face a new threat: the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station, which houses three of the damaged reactors, is spewing radioactive steam as power sources needed to cool spent fuel rods have been severed, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the arm of the UN Secretariat responsible for coordinating humanitarian actors in response to emergencies, has reacted vigorously. Since March 2, OCHA has deployed disaster reconnaissance teams, advised and coordinated dozens of UN and non-UN humanitarian agencies, and established $226 million in relief funds, $11 million of which has already been distributed through OCHA’s Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) to jump-start operations.
Yet OCHA’s response efforts, as well as those of other UN humanitarian actors, seem strikingly lopsided: all $226 million in relief funds have been allotted to Libya and Liberia-Côte d’Ivoire to support a veritable UN humanitarian army in the African disaster areas. Among its forces are the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Food Program (WFP), the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and the UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) team.
In sharp contrast to the UN’s African response, Japan’s crisis, which has displaced nearly 500,000 people, is reporting a higher death toll, and now faces the growing threat of nuclear fallout, has received no monetary help from the UN and only limited human resources: a seven-member disaster response team from UNDAC, an expert mission from the IAEA and specialized logistic support from the WFP.
Given the exigent, albeit different, conditions in the three crises, it would seem that the world’s central relief organization (the UN) and the head of its humanitarian arm (OCHA) would respond in a more equitable manner.
The uneven distribution of UN aid is even more striking considering how much each of the countries under consideration contributes to UN humanitarian efforts. As a whole in 2010, Libya, Liberia and Côte d’Ivoire gave $3.29 million in assessed contributions to the UN’s regular budget, which funds the WHO and the FAO. Of the voluntarily-funded humanitarian bodies, such as UNICEF, the WFP and UNHCR, none of the three African countries contributed financially in 2010; neither did they contribute to the CERF, which has provided the refugee crises with $11 million in emergency aid since March 2.
By contrast, Japan last year donated $2 million to the CERF, $265 million to the regular budget, $143 million to UNHCR, $214 million to the WFP and, in 2009, $164 million to UNICEF. Japan is also the second largest contributor to the peacekeeping budget, which will almost certainly deploy missions to help stabilize Libya and Côte d’Ivoire once ceasefires in the countries have been reached. Japan’s contributions to peacekeeping this year alone approach $1 billion.
Although Japan’s crisis is still in its early stages, it is unlikely that OCHA or other UN humanitarian agencies will provide a significant amount of additional assistance. As OCHA’s March 14 press release announcing deployment of the seven-member UNDAC team noted, “the Government of Japan has a very strong disaster preparedness and response mechanism in place and is coordinating the international response effort.”
The latter statement both explains the uneven distribution of UN resources in the three present crises and sheds light on the UN’s overall approach to humanitarian emergencies. Japan, a highly developed country with extensive political, economic and logistical resources of its own, is not only well-prepared to play the role of OCHA in responding to certain humanitarian crises, such as earthquakes or tsunamis, but insistent upon doing so. The Japanese government has continually stated since March 11 that it will request UN aid if and when it feels such assistance is necessary.
However, Libya, Liberia, and Côte d’Ivoire, all developing countries that have not yet acquired the political, economic and logistical capabilities to coordinate humanitarian emergency efforts of the present magnitude, must seek the help of outside relief actors such as the UN. In this particular case, the governments of Côte d’Ivoire and Libya are complicit in the unfolding refugee crises and have little incentive to work toward their resolution. Yet, even if they did have incentive to quell the crises, requisite resources to do so are lacking. Such are the realities, counterintuitive though they may be, of UN humanitarian response efforts across the North-South divide in the 21st century.
