Disaster Diplomacy: Between Universal Principles and Political Opportunism

Humanitarian diplomacy in the context of natural disasters has seen an upward trajectory since the new millennium, largely driven by the consequences of climate change (tsunamis, hurricanes, floods, wildfires, droughts) and earthquakes.

As its name suggests, this form of diplomacy aims to provide assistance and support to countries affected by natural disasters, especially by helping them cope with the tragic aftermath of such events through minimizing human and material losses, saving lives, alleviating suffering, and contributing to long-term recovery.

Situated at the crossroads of politics and humanitarianism, disaster diplomacy does not occur in a political vacuum; rather, it operates within a political context where several political actors play a crucial role in supporting disaster-affected countries. As such, it involves state and non-state national and international actors from diverse backgrounds — all of which engage in discussions and negotiations with the government of the affected country in order to deliver their assistance and emergency aid in an efficient manner (each having its own objective, mandate, resources and expertise).

Humanitarian aid is often spontaneously offered by states, international organizations, humanitarian agencies, civil society actors, and other stakeholders to ensure an effective response to natural disasters. In some cases, the affected country launches an appeal to international actors to provide assistance when the disaster exceeds its available resources.

Rarely do foreign humanitarian aid interventions occur without prior notice on the disaster scene. This is typically the case in countries in civil war where there is no one single legitimate central government, or in the aftermath of massive disasters that disrupt the structures of the central government, such as the 2010 earthquake in Haiti.

In all scenarios, humanitarian interventions must strictly adhere to the immutable principles of international public law and the UN Charter, including respect for the sovereignty, independence, and integrity of states. Any humanitarian intervention or offer of assistance that does not respect these principles of humanitarian diplomacy may be perceived by the recipient country as interference in its internal affairs or even as an “aggression.”

Humanitarian operations therefore require close cooperation between the government of the affected country and international partners, who often negotiate access to affected areas with the central government and local authorities to ensure that aid can be delivered safely in cooperation with national and local actors.

And so, when considering to undertake a humanitarian intervention, international partners (state and non-state actors, ought to make sure to act in accordance to the following principles that underpin humanitarian and disaster diplomacy:

– Humanity: The primary objective is to save lives and alleviate the distress of populations affected by humanitarian crises.
– Neutrality: The main idea here being that humanitarian aid must be provided without bias, offering fair assistance to all affected individuals, regardless of their origin, race, religion, or political affiliation.

– Independence: This principle stipulates that humanitarian actors must maintain their autonomy and independence from political, economic, or military interests.

– Universality: This has to do with the idea that humanitarian actors should strive to reach all people in need, regardless of the geographical context.

– Integrity: As its name implies, this principle means that humanitarian actors must act honestly and transparently in all their operations, ensuring proper use of resources while avoiding corruption, abusive practices, or the exploitation of vulnerable populations.

Unfortunately, these principles and codes of conduct are not always strictly observed, and some countries may be tempted to exploit the apparent and temporary vulnerability of the disaster-affected country to achieve geopolitical and strategic goals.

Indeed, humanitarian interventions can be used as substitutes, or even forms, of political interventions and can become a “Trojan Horse.”

That is, under the guise of humanitarian diplomacy, some states may employ strategies and tactics to achieve political objectives, including the following:
– Using humanitarian aid as a political pressure tool: by conditioning humanitarian aid on specific political demands, such as diplomatic concessions, policy changes.
– Manipulating humanitarian access: Humanitarian actors may favor certain areas, ethnicities, or religious communities over others to influence populations and gain their loyalty in the future.
– Instrumentalizing humanitarian aid for geopolitical purposes: Distributing humanitarian aid to strengthen their presence in a specific geographic area, gain the favor of local groups or governments to counter the influence of other international actors, or pursue their own geopolitical interests.
– Using aid to legitimize a government: Providing humanitarian aid to a struggling government to bolster its international legitimacy, despite concerns about good governance or human rights.

– Exploiting the humanitarian crisis to attract media attention: attracting media attention by amplifying humanitarian crises and using images of human suffering, not to gather international sympathy but to discredit and damage the image of the affected country.

– Using aid to gain economic advantages: Some States may use humanitarian aid to access markets, natural resources, or other economic benefits in a crisis-ridden country, especially during the reconstruction phase.

It goes without saying that the manipulation of humanitarian diplomacy for political purposes is contrary to morality and positive international law, and it is generally condemned by the international community because it undermines the fundamental humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence.

Recently, on September 8, Morocco was struck by a devastating earthquake in the Haouz region (near Marrakech). Rather unsurprisingly, This unprecedented tragedy prompted a rapid and widely effective response from King Mohammed VI and the Moroccan people. Morocco brought the situation under control within a few days, mobilizing all state civil society resources to cope with the earthquake’s calamitous aftermath.

Key actors in the response included the Royal Armed Forces and the Mohammed VI Foundation, which have been hailed in Morocco and worldwide for their professionalism and efficiency in providing first aid to victims, rescuing people from the rubble, opening blocked roads and tracks, setting up camps for victims, rapidly setting up field hospitals, mobile restaurants and schools, and creating a special fund for the reconstruction of the earthquake-hit regions. In addition, Morocco announced the creation of a special relief fund, a sort of “Marshall Plan” for the reconstruction not only of the affected region, but also for the transformation of the Moroccan countryside, combining tradition and modernity in the near future.

With its long-standing experience in crisis management (Al Hoceïma in 2004, the COVID-19 pandemic, to name a few recent examples), Morocco demonstrated unprecedented national mobilization and resilience in dealing with the September 8 earthquake.

However, in order to further strengthen its relief or coping arsenal, Morocco accepted the assistance of some friendly countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Spain and the United Kingdom, while thanking other countries that have not yet had the opportunity to materialize their assistance and solidarity. The choice of these countries by Moroccan authorities was made in strict accordance with the principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence.

Of particular note throughout this critical episode is that Moroccan diplomacy remained calm and firm, despite the actions and media statements of some countries that sought to seize this opportunity not to attempt to destabilize the country.

To navigate the complexities of international relations, especially in times of crisis, policymakers should adapt their strategies and tactics to the changing context in which they operate. Dealing with an LDC will be different from dealing with a regional or great power. They must also put aside preconceptions and stereotypes.

“Diplomacy is not like chess. It’s more like jazz, a constant improvisation on a theme,” the veteran American negotiator and diplomat Richard Holbrooke once said. This statement is particularly relevant when it comes to disaster diplomacy, which, like jazz, is not a carefully planned and executed chess match, but a dynamic, adaptive and improvisational endeavor.