The Humanitarian Club - members only!

Is the humanitarian sector run by an elite network that controls the vast majority of resources and power within the sector, a closed circle that excludes outsiders? This week Trumanitarian welcomes Michael N. Barnett, Professor of international affairs and a leading scholar on humanitarianism. In one of his pieces ‘The Humanitarian Club’ (we love it), Barnett uses sociological and economic theory to describe humanitarianism as a club where the few hold the economic, symbolic, social, and cultural capital. It leaves outsiders in the cold and permits members to control pooled funds, influence, and decision-making.

If you're ready to confront the harsh realities of the humanitarian sector, tune in and let Michael Barnett guide you through the systemic barriers that define the sector. It’s time to ask ourselves who really benefits, and who’s left outside the gates of the Humanitarian Club.

Don't forget to explore Michael’s chapter in the 2021 book “Global Governance in a World of Change” here - chapter 5.

[Lars Peter Nissen] (0:55 - 2:31)

This week's guest on Trumanitarian is Michael Barnett, a professor at George Washington University. To be honest, I wasn't intimately familiar with Michael's work on the humanitarian sector before Trumanitarian's two producers Rigmor and Ila began raving about his writing. As always, they were right. Michael has a nuanced and deep perspective on the workings of the humanitarian sector, and he delivers his analysis with elegance and humor. And this was a very enjoyable conversation. The point of departure for the discussion is an article Michael has written called The Humanitarian Club. It's from a book called Global Governance in a World of Change. And if you're interested in global governance, especially the way networks and institutions interact, you should check it out. You will find the link in the show notes. Also, don't stop halfway through this episode. You should listen all the way to the end, where Michael, as the second of our guests, delivers a chilling prediction for the next six months in American politics. As always, we appreciate all of your comments on social media, and we read all of the emails we get. Continue to share the show with colleagues and friends who may have an interest in listening to Trumanitarian. And most importantly, enjoy the conversation. Michael Barnett, welcome to Trumanitarian.

[Michael N. Barnett] (2:31 - 2:32)

Thanks for having me.

[Lars Peter Nissen] (2:32 - 3:04)

It's such a pleasure to have you here. You're a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University, and you've written a great article about the humanitarian sector called The Humanitarian Club. But before we jump into that article and what the implications of your research is for the humanitarian sector, it would be great if you could give us a little bit of your bio. Where does the interest in humanitarian action come from? What led you to study that?

[Michael N. Barnett] (3:05 - 5:59)

[Lars Peter Nissen] (6:00 - 6:14)

Even though you come in and experience the sector at what must be described, I think, as a low point, not only in terms of the terrible atrocities in Rwanda, but also the performance of the humanitarian sector and global governance, it was not our finest hour, I think.

[Michael N. Barnett] (6:15 - 6:58)

No, no. It was certainly a low point, but it was also a turning point for the sector. Because for those like me who are interested in governance, and who are interested in the humanitarian sector per se, this was a moment of transformation when you began to see a series of reforms that would really alter the nature of humanitarianism. So I now have a very aged view of what those early moments were like, and have followed the trajectory in real time ever since.

[Lars Peter Nissen] (6:59 - 7:51)

Yeah, so there are several things that are going on. One is, and in many ways are encapsulated by this very famous series of reports that have been sponsored by the Danish government, that were independent inquiries. And one of them was about just say, an evaluation of the humanitarian operation. And, you know, it was for, it made for shocking reading, especially for those who weren't there, like me. And the way they picked out a variety of sins, missteps, failings, misjudgments, that, you know, show a very dark light on humanitarianism. And this was actually at a moment when at least global media was portraying humanitarian workers as angels from heaven. And here was a report that said, basically, you know, the wings had fallen off the angels. And it was an honest assessment in many ways. It also served as a shot across the bow for humanitarians that people are watching, and they may not like what they're seeing. This is coupled with the worry from donors that, you know, whether it might actually impact their funding of humanitarian agencies. And I think for many who were there, and even those who weren't there in the humanitarian sector, you know, it just added to the shame. It added to the sense that maybe good intentions aren't enough, that we, as one later Save the Children report said, we need to be more focused on the means, and the machinery matters. And so there was a kind of, we got to clean up our house, and people are watching, donors are watching, and we have to do better. Lives are on the line. And to continue in this way is just, you know, inexcusable. And so there was a, you know, in many ways, it was a snowball effect. It began with a few senior veteran humanitarians from different large agencies getting together, and beginning to think about things like the quality of aid that gets stapled to questions of accountability. There was, you know, a growing sense that, you know, affected communities, you know, deserve more than just simply amateurs. You need professionals who are doing the work. And so it really was a very introspective moment where everything is now up for grabs. Although it's all moving in the same direction towards a emboldened machinery, a greater technical prowess, a desire, if you will, for, you know, as I call it, bureaucratization, professionalization, rationalization. I mean, this is really a moment where it's no longer about others, it's about us.

You called it, you said it created an emboldened machinery. I think that's a great phrase. And I think it's a good lead into the discussion of the humanitarian club. What is a humanitarian club, and why did you choose that term?

Well, you know, I spent a lot of time thinking about what might be the right terminology, the right concept, because, you know, there are a lot of people who have also commented on the gross inequality between those at the top and those at the bottom. And, you know, sometimes it's called an elite. Sometimes you hear it, you know, referred to in other kinds of, I don't know, power asymmetries. And, you know, by saying the club, what I wanted to convey is that, you know, first that this is about inclusivity and exclusivity, that clubs have, if you will, you know, there are, you know, rites of passage. There is discrimination in terms of who can be a member and who cannot, what it takes to be a member, what you need to have, what attributes. And, you know, those notions of a club in which there are guardrails, gates, really was something I wanted to convey. But then again, I wanted to use the language of the club to also convey that there is some upward mobility. People can get in. It's not completely a closed club. And that, you know, and that the standards for membership can change over time in interesting ways. And so the, but nevertheless, by talking about it as a club, I also wanted to highlight that these are relations of superiority and inferiority that are built into the club. And so that opens the door for thinking about what is it that creates this kind of gatekeeping role? And then what is it that actually helps to maintain it and reproduce it? And, you know, a lot of this is coming from, you know, my own academic writing and reading, and it just seemed to fit well. And so, you know, it's that sociological character of the humanitarian sector I wanted to bring in. If I could add one more thing there, though, which is that when I first started off looking at the humanitarian sector, and this again is, you know, over two decades ago, I kept bringing up the issue of power with humanitarian practitioners. And it was all very striking to me because as a political scientist, I just know there's power everywhere and in all social relations. And yet here were humanitarians, whether it was at Save the Children and World Vision, or whether it was at the UN and UNHCR, who just simply denied that there was any power in the relationship between them and affected communities. And I just didn't get it. I didn't understand how it was that that these people could be so oblivious to the power they have over others. And so that also informed much of my interest in the club. Now, I'm happy that people are now quite focused on this issue of power, but it wasn't always that way.

Why do you think it was like that?

Well, I think, you know, you know, I don't want to put the humanitarian sector on it, on the couch, so to speak.

It sort of is the purpose of this podcast, though.

Okay, well, maybe we should all take turns. That, you know, I think part of it was a sense that you're working with affected communities, that you're different than states and different than the UN, for instance, that you're working with them. You're in a relationship of equality, that you're in solidarity with others. And there's a discourse within the humanitarian sector that has just actually a lot of labor in masking these power inequalities. And, you know, it is possible, of course, to take your discourse very seriously and to see yourself as working with the have-nots and in tandem and in their interest. And so I think it made it very difficult to actually recognize that you had power. Also, the other aspect was that, you know, no one that I could figure who was at the top of the club ever bothered to talk to anybody at the local level, that they were silenced in a way. And so if you don't hear them speak or you find ways to discount what they had to say, then you can continue with this, I think, self-image.

Yeah. I think that's so interesting. I was trying to think through my own career and how I felt about it. I think, on one side, I think things probably changed in the power that was exercised. I think that Happy Clapping Cowboy Club, which was there before the wall came down, that was probably a different, often, at least what I did. I did my first career actually in, I did my first mission in 89. And that was sort of a very solidarity-based, accompanying vulnerable populations, protection, that sort of thing. We didn't actually hand out much in terms of food and we were peace guards, sort of a thing, right? And there it felt like, on one side, we understood the massive difference in situation between us who could leave and those who had to stay in very difficult situations. But on the other hand, there was a sense of partnership and I think accompanying, I think, was a way of thinking about it. And that's very different to sort of the more industrial humanitarian aid you see later on with massive sort of food distributions and so on. But once you get into that game, I think it's about, one, you feel very small next to, for example, the military. You do feel like you don't have a lot of power because you're just there. And I think it's also a factor that it's so overwhelming, the task you're in front of, that often you feel like you don't have a choice and you don't really make decisions. You just do what you can. And there's actually only like one path often. And I've spoken to academics who say the hardest thing in the world is to get a humanitarian to admit that they make a decision. And so there is that nasty mix between a very difficult operating theater and then feeling powerless and then this lack of accountability because it goes wrong no matter what you do. That's sort of why you're there, right? And so it's just not a very healthy feedback and learning loop, I think. And I think those are some of the elements that I sort of personally have reflected on in terms of, are you actually, are you thinking about this in the right way?

Yeah, no, and I've seen other people write in terms of their own reflections from the field is there are all these coping devices as well that, as you say, it's we don't make decisions. They're kind of forced on us. It's fatalistic almost that it is a way of I can only do so much. I don't have time to talk to people. I don't have time to integrate that. And I think that scenario, it's hard to measure, but that scenario worsened with the bureaucratization and all these other things that, you know, with the machinery that we've been talking about, because you're increasingly encased in rules, templates, log frames, all this, that, and the other, which creates even greater distance between yourself and affected communities.

Yes, and which is essentially, as I see it often, to a large extent a developmental toolbox that we try to impose in far more dynamic situations, where it just takes on a different meaning and it doesn't work. It's a complicated solution for a complex setting.

Absolutely. And given the complexity and the nature of the environment, you know, it's understandable the desire to simplify, because otherwise you just kind of throw your hands up and you don't know how to approach this uncertainty. And so I, you know, this is actually one of the reasons why we like bureaucracies, because it's a complex world and they've got a set of routines that tell you how to deal with it.

Yes, but as you say, there's an increasing awareness in the sector that something is wrong and that the power exists and that maybe we haven't quite lost some colonial aspects of the way we operate, and there are a number of things we are questioning ourselves about. Now, what is the role of the humanitarian club in that?

So the humanitarian club, as I see it, really begins in that post-Rwanda period, and part of it is that first there has to be an awareness that you are a group and that you have common values, common interests, common orientations, that you recognize the extent to which in order to get the job done, you have to engage in collective action. You can't all go and you're, you know, march through your own drummers and you're as you like that you need to actually in that language coordinate. And so you begin to have a bit of an esprit de corps, and there are always going to be some at this moment that are the industry leaders. They're the ones that are first out of the gate. The ones that are first out of the gate are, you know, still today the largest of the INGOs, and they begin to work together. As we talked about it, they're the ones that are actually establishing a lot of the rules, a lot of the accountability mechanisms.

So the sphere standards, for example.

Right, sphere standards, absolutely. And this creates, you know, a kind of a socialization process where you become more aware of your own common outlook. And over time, though, then, you know, as we see, they're the ones that essentially have, well, and also most importantly, and I should not forget, they're the ones that have the money. And so, you know, at the end of the day, they've got the money. And so they can actually be price makers as opposed to price takers when it comes to the governance. And, you know, and over time, though, they're, as we know, they're literally springing up all over the world, thousands of other humanitarian agencies. Some are quite small, you know, mom-and-pop operations. Some grow considerably over that time. We're not talking only about the Global West, but obviously the Global South. And those at the club are really able to maintain their standards, their rules, their definitions of accountability, and everybody else is supposed to really fall into line. And this then creates this kind of inequality, which everybody now is aware of, but no one really quite knows what to do about. And you can see this, you know, as I write in the piece, 2016 with the World Humanitarian Summit, everybody's pointing to different ways in which they think they can actually open things up, create more upper mobility. But, you know, it doesn't happen, obviously.

So the members of the club, it's a handful of UN agencies, it's the Red Cross movement, and then what, 10, 12 of the major NGOs?

10, 12. And donors.

And the donors, yeah. I mean, we of course talk about localization. Sometimes we say decolonizing. And I, you know, when you speak to people, I don't doubt that there's a real intent behind that. I think there's an honest want to change the way things work. But as you say, the club is quite resilient. Where does that resilience come from?

Well, one of the things I had hoped to accomplish in that piece is that, you know, the kind of commentary I see in terms of why this club continues to exist, and these inequalities persist, is, you know, oftentimes about money and self-interest. That this is, you know, these are the two factors that really explain, you know, why this club is so resilient. And I wanted to point to these underlying structural factors that also actually play a very important role. And so rather than thinking that somehow it would be a matter of one or two decisions, or one or two bold actors that could change the whole thing, I wanted to note that no, actually clubs stay together for a whole bunch of reasons. And, you know, part of it is money, but then you've got to look at the way money from donors is given out. And it's given out for a lot of bureaucratic reasons that, you know, are often working behind the scene. That, you know, social capital is important. That you have to have a level of trust, which, as we know from surveys, that there's not a lot of trust between, let's say, the big members of the club and local agencies, national agencies. It does not exist. And, you know, you have to have a sense that we all understand humanitarianism in the same way. And that's always been an important feature of a lot of the debates since the end of the Cold War, which is, what is humanitarianism? And again, from surveys, we see that those in the Global South have a very different understanding of what humanitarianism is, what the principles are. And so, you know, that doesn't, you know, encourage the club to relax anymore. There's a sense then that if they relax, it's going to change humanitarianism forever. And, you know, the last bit is, you know, a little bit related to, you know, what we know about clubs is that, and trust is that those who are members of the club have a level of comfort with each other. A lot of times the, you know, these are actually relationships forged in foxholes. They're quite intense. It's a relatively small group that, you know, gets to know each other, not only in the field, but also then in all the meetings that are held afterwards. And that creates more distance. And, you know, the whole totality of all this is that it maintains these deep relations of inequality. And one last important point, the development of expertise and the professionals also means that we know, again, it's another demonstration of we know best.

It's interesting because when I was reading your article, I was thinking, okay, he calls it a club, but did you consider calling it a guild, like a medieval sort of guild of, you know, tradesmen who were there to keep the quality up, but really is to keep people out?

Yeah, that's actually, I didn't, but I may have to steal it. It could be a guild. I mean, there are a lot of ways in which we can try and capture, right, why it is that there's this small power elite, if you wanted to go, you know, deeply sociological, that's at the top. And, you know, and that guild metaphor actually works, I think, really well, because when I've talked to those in the, in Western aid agencies who are very sympathetic to localization, one of the fears they have is that, you know, while this may be good, you know, local and national agencies may feel good about this, but will it harm the effectiveness of humanitarianism? Can we trust them to do the right thing?

And I don't even want to go there, because I get too angry. I mean, it's, the arrogance in some of those statements, it's just too much. But maybe I'd like to challenge you a little bit and say, okay, so you're one among a group of academics studying humanitarian action.

That has grown, right? I mean, when I went to university, I started political science as well. And humanitarian action did not exist as a, as a specialized field that you could study, at least not in Denmark, where I grew up. And are you guys part of the club? Now we have all you brilliant academics. Are you in or out?

That's a, you know, it's a, it's a really good question, because I think, you know, speaking simply as an academic, I think we want to have it both ways. I think we want in, to the extent that we, we want to feel like actually we're contributing, and that we're able to use our research as a way of, as a form of advocacy, as a way of providing an alternative view on, on things that may not change anything that goes on, but at least provides more awareness of the options. I mean, that's in those rare moments where I've had the opportunity to, you know, be in those venues. I mean, that's, that's how I self-consciously see myself as playing that role. So it really is one of, let's say, a friendly critic. At the same time, though, as academics, we are very, you know, we're even more independently minded than humanitarians. We very much protect our source of authority, which is our own objectivity, our own use of evidence, that we're not corrupted or co-opted, that we're not trying to say the things that those in power want to hear, just so we can get ourselves into the club. And so I think, you know, in many ways, at least speaking for myself now, we want to have it both ways. I personally jump at any opportunity I have to help to participate.

I learn a lot at those moments, but I also hope to be able to, in that American expression, give back. But I don't know, you know, I think my sense of those who are practitioners, who do this on a daily basis and in the fields and, you know, behind their desks for 8, 10, 12 hours a day, I'm not sure how trusted we are. You know, one of the things that, you know, whether it's with those who are in the humanitarian club or here in DC in the policymaking club, there's always a sense that, well, you academics don't understand us. And so I think it cuts in really interesting ways.

I think, if I can speak personally about my experience with academics, that quite a few of you guys were not very useful. And where you get the sense that a lot of research is driven by sort of an intellectual appetite, which is fine from an academic point of view, which from a practitioner point of view can end up with, sorry, I don't have time to give you an interview about that, to be honest. I don't think that'll lead to anything, right? For me, that's one reaction. I find some people are really on the ball. We've had a couple of guys on the show here talk about, for example, about how evidence is produced and how the institutions where they are produced shape the nature of that evidence and sort of how numbers are not just numbers and stuff. I mean, that stuff for me is fascinating. And I think the work you do, Michael, is also in the useful category, right? But I think what would be nice if I could ask something is, I think in your outside role, where you critically butcher the angels without the wings or whatever you want to say, where you sort of really say, this is a club where you have problems with even recognizing the power you have, that's hugely helpful, right? Maybe stepping in would be to step into two alternatives, something that is radically different. And I like that a little bit sometimes. I think there are ways to, if you take Ukraine, for example, let's take Ukraine. If you study the behavior of the club in Ukraine, you will learn nothing new. If you look at the almost all society mobilization of small little grassroots organizations, you'll learn a lot. But I wish somebody would study them on their terms and then figure out how the heck do we enable that incredibly dynamic, diverse network swarm of actors? How do you do that? You don't coordinate that. So what do you do?

That's what I'm lacking.

Yeah, no, you're speaking to the converted here. In fact, I was in Warsaw this summer at a conference of NGOs in Poland who were helping with Ukrainian refugees. And it was being invited into an inner sanctum of those who are in an interesting position because they're local actors, but they're also European actors and they're part of the EU. And so that positionality gives them an interesting leverage. At the same time, I've established a really warm and ongoing relationship with people in Pakistan who work for Community World Service Asia. And I have immensely enjoyed and learned. And I agree with you, if I'm in a room full of donors, which is kind of what happens here in DC, then what I have to say is irrelevant. And I kind of know that, you know, I can, you know, preach, but no one's listening. But if I'm with those who I think are trying to experiment, who are trying to figure out new ways of working, developing new kinds of relationships that are open to social innovations, then I think I might have, you know, again, I don't know what impact I have, but at least I do feel like what I have to say, you know, at least one out of 10 times may have some resonance. But going back to your initial point, I have no doubt that academics are useless to most of what humanitarians do day to day. Absolutely. And we're always trying to figure out, as we say, how can we take our esoteric knowledge and make it usable? And that's always a threat.

But so maybe another question along that line would be, you know, when I started, you could still see sort of the remains of the old Danita in Denmark, right? And the people you heard about, there was a lawyer, there was a theologian, there was a historian, whatever. And if you go today, you will find people who are specialized, have studied humanitarian action, they know how to do things in the correct way. Is that a problem?

No, but it's not necessarily a problem. You know, I guess my view of this whole, let's again, call it the rise of the machines, is that, you know, there's always good news and bad news. I think in some ways, what ended up happening had to happen. That it was not possible for humanitarian sector to keep doing what it was doing and succeed, and to do right by the victims and the affected communities. So that was necessary. But, you know, as we know from studying the nature of bureaucracies and organizations, there's always a downside. It does exist. And, you know, there's, and I think some of those downsides are exactly the ones we've been talking about. And the question is, can you manage them? I don't think you can ever eliminate them. But the issue is, can you manage them? Can you find a way to make the experts accountable? What would that look like? I mean, these are the kinds of questions that I think we can learn. And I would say that there's a lot to be learned by looking at how other sectors have dealt with the same problem. So for instance, humanitarians are not the only occupation of care that have dealt with this. So have medical institutions, doctors, nurses, health providers. They've got, they're the experts. But as you know, it's not just simply, it's not simply the tools and techniques, but it's also your human relations. And how do you make sure that those human relations are not lost as you become an expert?

You mentioned that one of the core assets of the club, or one of the core assets, it's the principles we operate with. And if you look at what has been discussed over the past couple of years, those principles are being questioned. We have had Hugo Slim on the show, and he seems to enjoy running around with a sledgehammer, taking them out one after the other. You know, independence and neutrality has gone already in Hugo's book. And I hear he's coming for humanity now, right? So...Hugo just gave a book talk here a couple of weeks ago. So yeah. Yeah. It's interesting and very provocative. And what happens if that sort of thinking undermines the consensus we have about the principles? Does that dissolve the club?

Well, it's a very good, and that's an excellent question. It's one I've been wrestling with for quite some time now, which is sort of, you know, it gets to this question of what binds the club, you know, because you have to have something at the core. And those principles have served that core function. It binds everybody. Now, I think what's interesting about it is that, you know, from what we've seen now from surveys, and this is not just from the Global South, but also the Global West, is that most people actually don't know what these principles are. That, you know, they confuse impartiality and neutrality. They're not really sure what humanity means, independence. Some people say, well, it never existed. And so who cares? Other people say this is actually the thing that really, you know, keeps us safe from other people, other threats. And so I think there is that. I actually don't, it does, in some ways, the function of these principles is to, at least if you say there are principles, then it actually says we have something common, even if we don't know what the principles really are. I do think that the principles are becoming stretched, elastic. And to the extent that we follow, let's say, Hugo Slim, in terms of trying to peel away those principles, I do think it can have disastrous effects on the humanitarian identity. Whether that's a good thing or bad thing, I'll let others decide. Because, you know, my sense is that it will dissolve the very thick boundaries of the club. It'll make it much more difficult to distinguish what humanitarians do to what climate change activists do. They become almost identical. Now, I worry about that, not so much for what happens to my friends' jobs who work in the various aid agencies, but what does it mean for the affected communities? Does the elimination of a humanitarianism with a purpose towards a particular group, does that dissolution mean that affected communities become more vulnerable than ever? For me, one of the ways, at least in terms of my ethics, that I've thought through a lot of these issues is, the club or the sector is always a means to an end. It exists for a purpose that I think we all agree on. One of the manifestations of this bureaucratization and the machinery is that, as Max Weber would say, this is a situation where the means become the ends. Rather than simply thinking about how can I improve my craft to help others, it really is about how can the club survive? I want to reverse that and put what are now the ends, put them back into the means and get the focus on what's best for the affected communities.

Yeah, I think that is right. I share your concern that if we let go of the principles, then we will spread scarce resources more thinly and we will give governments an opportunity to not focus on the most vulnerable or the most at risk. That's where I have my reservations. I would rather lose the institutional setup and keep the principle than the other way around.

Much better said than I did.

Michael, fantastic to have you on True Mediterranean. It's a very enjoyable conversation. Now, here comes the hard part. We're going to ask you to do a prediction. We want you to predict a consequential event that will happen within the next six months and that will change the world in some significant way. Then we'll call you back in half a year and if you're right, we'll send you a bottle of champagne. If you're wrong, we'll talk about why that was.

Okay. Well, I'm here in the United States. We're less than 30 days out from our election. That's, in many ways, the center of my focus. I think some of the predictions are now very well taken. There will be election day violence regardless of what happens. We're on election day and inauguration. This could become very much a hung election that ends up getting tossed into the Supreme Court for it to decide which would be a disaster. I do posit the possibility that we have two rival presidents. We have the two-body problem where you've got a President Trump who, if he loses, of course, is going to say he won and he's got a lot of people behind him. Then you may have the officially elected Kamala Harris who sits in the White House. That's a disaster. That would have enormous consequences for the rest of the world. Not to mention, of course, in the United States. That's my prediction. I hope I'm wrong. I hope I have to give you, everybody who are looking at a bottle of champagne. Maybe someday we'll have a chance to drink it together.

That would be excellent. It's a brilliant prediction, Michael, but I wouldn't worry too much. We used to think that there could be only one Pope, but we've had two. The Catholic Church is doing great, so don't worry.

Not for a while. I did have to iron that out.

All right. Michael, thanks so much. This has been great fun. Thanks for the role you play in the sector. It's fantastic to have sharp academics like yourself, challengers, and provide perspectives that it's hard to see when you're running around in the hamster wheel. Thank you very much.

My pleasure. Thank you for inviting me.