Description
In the immediate response to the Russian invasion in Ukraine many humanitarian organisations have opened offices and hospitals in Ukraine. While some organisations already had a presence in a development capacity, for many this was new territory. Ukraine therefore makes an interesting case study to investigate the extent of recurring patterns and structures that are reminiscent of colonial practices. Humanitarianism is increasingly critiqued for its role in the perpetuation and replication of neo-colonial structures. This is not only visible in outwardly practices facing the recipients of aid and the impact on the context in which it operates, but also internally vis-a-vis its employees and the reproduction of bias towards the operational context. This paper asks to what extent the humanitarian response to the war in Ukraine resonates with these images. We zoom in on the NGO practice in security management. The practice highlights many of the paradoxes present in humanitarianism. Firstly, the overfunding of the humanitarian aid in Ukraine. There is a disproportionate amount of funding available, which is also reflected in the budget that most NGOs have for security. This is in contrast to many places worldwide, where arguable more funding is needed. Secondly, the war in Ukraine is a war with a frontline, as opposed to a counterinsurgency context, therefore there are many areas where high levels of securitization are not required. Thirdly, NGOs reportedly experience difficulties with the recruitment of local security staff. Instead, they rely on traditional security actors who often have limited experience working in the NGO space, or bring in expat employees, reproducing colonial hierarchies in security management. Fourthly, related to this is the increasing influence of “security experts”, individuals at think tanks, NGOs and on social media who increasingly fill the gap of institutionalised local knowledge.
