‘New’ humanitarianisms and programming: the encounter of Turkey and Europe with Syrian refugees

ABSTRACT

This article highlights the intervention strategies of Turkey and Europe in response to the Syrian refugee movement. Focusing on Turkey’s state-led humanitarianism, it highlights the affinity to ‘Western’ humanitarianism with regard to humanitarianism as an instrument of interventionism. It shows how these different approaches contributed to a weak protection framework, and how they translated into humanitarian programming that accommodates both parties. This contribution thus concludes that the distinction between ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’ humanitarianisms must be unpacked by analysing how various actors make use of and reproduce this construct to position and negotiate the terms of humanitarian actions, and not be analysed or understood as essentialist categories that explain action.

KEYWORDS:

• Humanitarian programming
• Turkey
• interventionism
• Western humanitarianism
• protection
• refugees
• Syria

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Chimni, ‘Globalisation, Humanitarianism and the Erosion’; Donini, ‘The Far Side’.

2. Davey et al., ‘A History of the Humanitarian System’.

3. Development Initiatives, ‘Global Humanitarian Assistance Report’.

4. For an analysis of the historical development of Turkey’s interventionist strategies, see Hoffman, ‘Neo-Ottomanism’, in this special issue.

5. Çelik and İşeri, ‘Islamically Oriented Humanitarian NGOs’.

6. Keyman and Sazak, ‘Turkey as a “Humanitarian State”’.

7. Davutoğlu, ‘Turkey’s Humanitarian Diplomacy’, 867.

8. Fisher Onar, ‘Constructing Turkey Inc.’; Bacik and Afacan, ‘Turkey Discovers Sub-Saharan Africa’, Baird, ‘The Geopolitics of Turkey’s “Humanitarian Diplomacy”’.

9. Barnett, Empire of Humanity.

10. Davutoğlu, ‘Turkey’s Humanitarian Diplomacy’.

11. European Commission, ‘Humanitarian Protection’; Holmes and Bhuvanendra, ‘Preventing and Responding to Gender-Based Violence’.

12. Ponthieu, ‘MSF: Reaction to FRONTEX New Accusations’.

13. Cohen, ‘Hard Cases’; ICRC, ‘ICRC Calls for Compliance’.

14. The Members of the European Council and The Republic of Turkey, ‘EU-Turkey Statement’.

15. Freedman, ‘Sexual and Gender-Based Violence’; Keygnaert and Guieu, ‘What the Eye Does Not See’; Arsenijević et al., ‘A Crisis of Protection and Safe Passage’.

16. Barın, ‘Türkiye’deki Suriyeli Kadınların’; MAZLUMDER, ‘Kamp Dışında Yaşayan Suriyeli’; Kivilcim, ‘Legal Violence’.

17. Stepputat, ‘Refugees in “Regions of Origin”’; Betts, ‘International Cooperation between North and South’.

18. Crisp, ‘Refugee Protection in Regions of Origin’.

19. Açıkgöz and Ariner, ‘Turkey’s New Law’; Öner and Genç, ‘Vulnerability Leading to Mobility’.

20. Yanık, ‘The Metamorphosis of Metaphors of Vision’.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Talita Cetinoglu

Talita Cetinoglu holds a PhD from the University of Manchester, Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute. With over 13 years of experience in the humanitarian field in Africa and the Middle East, Cetinoglu’s research investigates the dynamics of humanitarian programming by examining aid discourses, policies and practices.