If you look around at the many human rights organizations, most were
formed to intervene in urgent crises or to prevent pending tragedies.
While stopping atrocities and saving humanity is a noble and necessary
undertaking, though, ad hoc responses to media-selected celebrity
causes is not necessarily the most effective use of humanitarian
resources. Given the failure of states and international institutions in
this task, one has to ask if there isn't a better way.
While mobilizing remedial resources for displaced persons and
refugees through institutions like the Red Cross and Red Crescent
ameliorates suffering, prevention of atrocities remains an illusive
humanitarian endeavor. With the militarization of humanitarian projects
that has corrupted some big international NGOs of late,
institutionalizing humanitarian efforts for the future requires that we
rethink how we respond and reflect on how we might reform our
humanitarian organizing.
With networks emerging as the new form of organization to address
issues neglected by states and markets, we might want to consider how
they can be institutionalized in order to provide continuity to efforts.
Archiving collective memory and structuring learning and mentoring are
key to that, but without the resources of states and markets, we will
need to localize and link what we do and how we communicate in order to
be effective. Like the failure of the giant, hegemonic model in
government and industry, the failure of big international NGOs signals
the time for a new organizing strategy. With the reemergence of
Indigenous nations acting local and thinking global, perhaps civil
society worldwide already has a template for survival.
