The second observation, which will be crucial for what follows, is that
Orbinski and Brauman together summarise a strong case for jettisoning the
concepts of “humanitarian emergency” and “humanitarian crisis” as adequately
describing the most horrific instances of human suffering. Yet in making this case,
the reason such moments in the history of humanity, such moments as Srebrenica
or Auschwitz, make for such powerful examples is that there is widespread
agreement that they represent unacceptable and unjustifiable human suffering.
Indeed, in his recent memoir, An Imperfect Offering , Orbinski links his own
humanitarian awakening to a childhood encounter with a Holocaust survivor.^29 They
define the parameters of an ethic or politics of refusal. They represent, then, the
very framings of suffering that have inspired humanitarians from Thomas Clarkson
and Henry Dunant onwards, and clearly lie at the core of professional
humanitarians’ self-understanding.
As such, it begins to make more conceptual sense to consider Auschwitz as a
“humanitarian crisis”, in the sense of a “crisis of humanity”. Indeed, it is a core
concern of this thesis to argue that the idea of “humanitarian crisis” becomes more
coherent if understood in terms of “crises of humanity”, namely those moments
when the central notion of a common humanity, which all humanitarians believe in
and defend, comes under threat. This is not to say that there need be a single,
definitive account of what common humanity is or entails. It is merely to note that
humanitarians necessarily articulate and defend a notion of common humanity,
which can then be understood as under threat in particular circumstances. The kind
of suffering at stake then is perhaps best characterised not by its precise bodily or
psychological manifestations, but instead by the notion of its unacceptability and
unjustifiability. In fact, surely concern about “humanitarian crises”, understood
technically, and the sense that human solidarity demands a response, comes from
that simultaneous, or even prior, discussion about what is unacceptable. The
unacceptable could well then be defined by such “crises of humanity”.
29
Orbinski, An Imperfect Offering , 21-25.