In January, there were two discussions in the United Nations Security Council that are important to Refugees International’s work.  The discussion on Somalia was particularlydisappointing, but we were pleased that the UN Security Council is finally looking at how to respond to the escalating violence in south Sudan.

Somalia may be the most difficult place to provide aid in the world. The needs are tremendous after years of conflict and drought. The central government controls a few square blocks of the capital and is under threat from an Islamist insurgency that includes both local and foreign elements. Infrastructure is badly degraded. In such a resource poor environment, aid itself has a value out of proportion to its actual cost.

September has been a big month for international peacekeeping, for better and for worse…

President Barack Obama’s engagement and encouraging statements at the UN General Assembly meeting in New York this week spoke of the promise of a renewed international push to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of UN peacekeeping as a whole. 

I spent a night in Mogadishu this past March. It was less dramatic than it sounds. Two colleagues and I stayed at the base of the African Union peacekeeping force, AMISOM, which is reached by a back road directly from the airport. We didn’t dare venture into the city.

More than 3 million Somalis are dependent on external assistance; over 1 million are internally displaced; and another 500,000 and counting have sought refuge in neighboring countries. Yet, as the humanitarian situation in Somalia continues to deteriorate, the world is focused on a lone “pirate” in New York. I can’t help but question where our humanity and moral resolve lies.

Humanitarianism is built upon the principles of neutrality and impartiality and the fundamental assertion that aid should be delivered strictly according to need.  However, aid itself can and has often been manipulated for political and strategic ends.  Large deliveries of food and supplies have a monetary value, particularly in areas suffering from conflict where people are exposed to large-scale deprivation.  Aid can also have a legitimizing effect, giving political credibility and power to those people and institutions that are seen to be the intermediaries between aid agencies and the general population.

We were just stepping out of our vehicle in the far reaches of Hagadera, one of three camps that make up the sprawling Dadaab camp for Somali refugees in northeastern Kenya, when it became obvious that we had stumbled upon a pocket of misery. A man waved his arms, and starting shouting, "No water! No water!"

As we walked into the area, a group quickly gathered and started the rapid fire explanation of their plight, with passionate interruptions and people struggling to be heard, testing the patience and talent of our guide, himself a refugee who arrived in Dadaab in 1992. As visitors from the outside world, in our case from Washington, D.C. and Refugees International, we had to hear their story.

Crises are the stock and trade of humanitarian agencies. Yet there is no consensus or clarity in the emergency response field as to what constitutes a humanitarian crisis. In a saturated global media environment, the temptation is great for agencies to designate particular situations as humanitarian crises to get attention to a neglected group of vulnerable people or to stigmatize the responsible parties. The rhetorical leaps from “difficult situation” to “humanitarian crisis” to “massive humanitarian crisis” to “the world’s worst humanitarian crisis” are as easy as skipping over a puddle.