Labels vs Actions: How to Actually Help Deal with Sierra Leone, Climate Change, and Tuvalu

           Of our most recent case studies, one theme was quite prevalent: when faced with some sort of human and/or environmental crisis, many of those in positions to help spend considerably more time debating what labels or pre-existing programs should be assigned to a situation in a foreign nation that requires some degree of international assistance. All too frequently, efforts to aid foreign countries rely too heavily on the idea that those offering the aid have the best solution to a problem, a solution that can be implemented across the board, regardless of varying circumstances. Often those attempting to help a situation fail to ask those who it affects the most what they need, what they want, or what they think the solution should be. This failure to properly acknowledge and validate the experiences and knowledge of the people in need of assistance, often results in programs and labels that don't necessarily help as much as they should, if at all.
            There is such an extreme emphasis from world powers and organizations like the U.N., for the world to agree on a set of labels and procedures, and to apply them universally even if they won't necessarily make any difference. Even when it comes to something like whether or not climate change should be considered a national security threat, those (often very powerful nations) who conclude that it should, attempt to push those who believe otherwise to follow in their footsteps. They often emphasize how many of the nations who view it as a regular environmental issue instead, should be viewing it as a national security issue more so than anyone because they are more directly impacted by climate change than most other nations. The end result of this is more energy directed towards trying to make all nations view climate change as a national security threat than at cooperatively dealing with the actual issue.
            A more obvious, blatant and specific example of this problem can be seen through an examination of the international political responses to Sierra Leone in the 1990s/ early 2000s. In Sierra Leone, following the resolution of the conflict between groups such as the Revolutionary United Front, mining companies, and the local government over diamonds, several international forces attempted to aid the nation. Post-conflict programs such as 'Disarmament, demobilization and reintegration' (DDR) programs were implemented. However, their impact disproportionally affected former male soldiers (who had been securitized by outside forces) and former female soldiers (who had not been securitized). Despite the fact that a significant amount of women had been soldiers, few girls or women went to these programs, due to a myriad of social reasons that outside forces failed to consider (e.g. that many women voluntary were the perpetrator of horrific wartime acts rather than their victims, that the programs division of children and adults based on age didn't  necessarily align with the personal and societal perception of female soldiers based on their experiences, etc.). This insistence on applying specific perceptions, solutions, and labels from aiding nations and groups hindered their ability to help Sierra Leone recover as much as they could have.
        In more recent times, a similar problem is occurring in response to climate change-related threats to the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu. Rising sea levels are threatening to completely submerge the island, leading many to assert that there will soon be a flood of Tuvaluan "climate change refugees" to neighboring countries like Australia, Fiji and New Zealand. There, of course, have already been Tuvaluans who have immigrated to these countries, so this perception of migration is not imagined, however, the perception of its correlation to climate change might be. It could easily be several more decades before Tuvaluans have to emigrate, and it appears that many wish to stay there, regardless of whether or not that is plausible or rational. Outside forces thus begin debating whether or not they can help save Tuvalu, whether or not they can or should help facilitate Tuvaluan migration, and whether or not Tuvaluans should be labeled as "climate change refugees" due to negative connotations of the term 'refugee'.The first two questions are of course significantly more important than the last, however, in most discussions, many neglect to properly acknowledge or validate the thoughts of Tuvaluans; something which will likely lead to yet another situation which could have ended better if only those directly affected by the crisis had been properly consulted and valued.

        Overall, there needs to be a stronger push to consult with those directly affected by human and/or environmental crises, to acknowledge their experiences and opinions and to incorporate them into any proposed solutions. That is not to say that the entire solution should be shaped solely around, say, the wants of those affected, but that at the very least those directly affected should be able to have a say in any plans concerning their future wellbeing. In order for nations and organizations who wish to help those affected by human and/or environmental crises to successfully offer useful aid, they need to remember that no label or program is 'one size fits all' and adjust any solutions they offer to accordingly incorporate the solutions of those directly affected.