Saving Lives, Securing Interests: Reflections on Humanitarian Response and U.S. Foreign Policy

• Date: 01 March 2012
• Published date: 01 March 2012
• Author: Eric P. Schwartz
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02558.x

Perspective

Eric P. Schwartz is dean o f the

Humphrey School of Public Affairs at

the University of Minnesota. Previously, he

served as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State

for Population, Refugees, and Migration and

has worked at the National Security Council,

the United Nations, the U.S. Congress,

and Human Rights Watch. He holds a juris

doctorate from New York University School

of Law and a master of public affairs degree

from Princeton University’s Woodrow

Wilson School.

E-mail: eschwart@umn.edu

Ref‌l ections on Humanitarian Response and U.S. Foreign Policy 173

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 72, Iss. 2, pp. 173–174. © 2012 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.111/j.1540-6210.2011.02558.x.

Saving Lives, Securing Interests: Ref‌l ections on Humanitarian

Response and U.S. Foreign Policy

Eric P. Schwartz

University of Minnesota

of concern for those members of Congress and civil

society groups that have provided the critical f‌i nancial

and political support for U.S. programs. Rather, they

have been moved by the simple policy goal of saving

lives and have understood well that total annual civil-

ian humanitarian assistance from the United States—

about $5 billion per year—is only a small fraction of

the less than 1 percent of our federal budget that is

dedicated to all U.S. overseas aid.

So how do U.S. of‌f‌i cials—particularly humanitarian

of‌f‌i cials working in government—ensure that this

mandate to save lives is vindicated most ef‌f ectively?

First, humanitarians must be advocates for victims

of persecution, violence, and human rights abuses

and engage in diplomacy that is emboldened by a

broad conception of their humanitarian and protec-

tion mandate. Provision of food, water, and sanita-

tion for those engulfed in crisis is critical, but it

is not enough, as solutions to most humanitarian

crises require political action. In 2009, my visits in

Sri Lanka with displaced Tamil civilians interned in

camps in the north helped me appreciate more deeply

their challenging circumstances and informed U.S.

ef‌f orts to provide support for provision of food and

shelter. But it was just as critical that I emphasized—

in meetings with the president of Sri Lanka, with the

defense minister, and with other senior of‌f‌i cials—the

importance of freedom of movement and return of

these internally displaced persons to their homes. In

Iraq, Jordan, and Syria, my visits with Iraqis who had

to f‌l ee their homes certainly informed U.S. ef‌f orts

to provide relief, but my trips to Iraq also provided

critical opportunities to urge senior Iraqi of‌f‌i cials to

develop strategies to promote return, local integration,

and reconciliation, all of which provide a foundation

for enduring peace and stability.

Responsible humanitarian action also requires that

humanitarians in government are part of the broader

of‌f‌i cial discussions of policy on political and secu-

rity issues. Whether it is regional security strategies

Last October, as I prepared to leave my job as

the U.S. State Department’s senior humanitar-

ian of‌f‌i cial, a tragedy of enormous proportions

was unfolding in the Horn of Africa. More than

13 million people were in need of aid, and 2.6 million

were facing emergency and famine conditions in

largely inaccessible areas of Somalia under the control

of al-Shabaab militants. Despite U.S. assistance that

amounted to about $650 million as of last fall, ef‌f orts

to alleviate the crisis were making only the most

modest progress.

 e ongoing tragedy in Somalia may represent the

worst humanitarian disaster the world has confronted

over the past year, but widespread humanitarian

suf‌f ering continues unabated in many parts of the

globe. Beyond massive destruction caused by disasters

resulting from natural hazards, we have seen in recent

years substantial new or ongoing displacement as a

result of conf‌l icts in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan,

the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Yemen,

Kyrgyzstan, and Afghanistan, among other countries.

Crises of these dimensions bring into stark relief the

operational and policy challenges facing governments

and international organizations whose mandates

include the alleviation of human suf‌f ering. And at

a time of federal budget reductions in the United

States, they also force U.S. policy makers to articulate

compelling rationales for large U.S. programs for

overseas relief.

 ere is, of course, the national security justif‌i cation.

Whether it is U.S. aid to 1.7 million Afghan refugees

in Pakistan, support for the return of millions of

African refugees to their homes over the past decade,

or funding for housing, education, and health care for

Palestinian refugees in the Middle East, U.S. humani-

tarian programs promote well-being in circumstances

in which despair and desperation can threaten stabil-

ity and, ultimately, U.S. national security interests.

But during my many years in the federal govern-

ment, those security rationales were not at the center