to wonder if Auschwitz would be considered a ‘‘humanitarian crisis’’ were it
to happen today.^9Elsewhere, Brauman has made clear his concern that the humanitarian crisis might
become the perfect crime: one with only victims.^10 In that case, humanitarianism
itself risks becoming the alibi. Perhaps controversially, I want to argue here that
although Brauman is entirely right to make this point from the perspective of
humanitarianism as a practical endeavour, his comment obscures the wider sense
of humanitarianism as a vital discussion in which Auschwitz can, indeed should be
articulated as a humanitarian crisis in the sense of a “crisis of humanity”, a moment
when the very category of common humanity is menaced. It is precisely in response
to such moments of crisis that we come to articulate the markers that divide the
human from the inhuman, and set out the terms on which our “politics of
humanity” is to be negotiated.^11
Bauman’s position within the practice of humanitarianism gives him good
reason to voice the concern that to describe Auschwitz as a “humanitarian crisis”
could be deeply dangerous and irresponsible: it is not a problem that professional
humanitarians can possibly solve, and so to describe it as a humanitarian crisis lets
those responsible off the hook. As we saw in the previous chapter, professional
humanitarians function according to a specific sense of what constitutes
humanitarian action, such as the neutral and impartial provision of relief. The
danger, sensed by Brauman, is that if we simultaneously articulate a vision of what
humanitarian action is, and describe a problem that cannot possibly be solved by
such action as humanitarian, we are creating a dangerous cognitive dissonance
within international public discourse. Because Auschwitz cannot be stopped by
relief workers it is dangerous to describe it as a humanitarian problem, or indeed as
9
10 Brauman, "From Philanthropy to Humanitarianism": 411.
11 Brauman, Penser Dans L'urgence , 234.
I was able briefly to put the kernel of this argument to Brauman himself at a recent
seminar at the Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute at the University of
Manchester (24 November 2009). While not having a fully articulated response to it, he
appeared to consider it a valid and challenging position.