Together We Stand

[ 160 ] tory. This is not a call to predict the future, but rather to plan from the future, to consider what might be in order to ensure that the organization is sufficiently adaptive to cope with future threats. Towards this end, immediate steps might be considered now. The United Nations with its plethora of programmes and agencies is well placed to promote integrated futures planning, drawing upon international natural and social scientific insti- tutions to identify plausible longer-term risks. These should form the basis of biennial reports intended to monitor futures perspectives. In addition, mechanisms to assist regional and national organizations to plan more ‘speculatively’ should form the basis of a global fund, supported by private sector organizations, social enterprise and crowdfunding networks as well as non-governmental organizations such as the Start Network and the conventional and emerging donor communi- ties. Humanitarian organizations should also be rewarded for promoting an ethos of speculation and anticipation. Second, planning has to begin by abandoning the human- itarian-development divide that has been a persistent source of tension and debate over decades and adopt integrated planning methods, monitoring and dealing with potential spillovers. Integrated planning, in this context, should reflect a wider number of scientific and social-scientific disciplines. With that in mind, resilience, stability and economic secu- rity should frame futures planning. Links between short-term operational objectives and longer-term strategies should be promoted, reflecting among other things the interaction between local and global. Platforms at regional levels should include private sector, government, non-governmental and research institutions. They should promote interregional collaboration, intended to identify ‘spillover’ problems and solutions and common planning and response approaches. Third, as presently configured, the traditional humanitarian sector has neither the material, human resources nor capacities to deal with future humanitarian threats. Therefore humani- tarians of the future will consist of a wide spectrum of actors, from the private and military sectors to the diaspora and cyber- networked groupings. Their involvement will be based upon comparative advantages and value added, and will be motivated substantially by what they perceive as their immediate and, in many instances, longer-term interests. Therefore, more inclu- sive access to humanitarian forums should be open for those whose interests, broadly defined, can be enhanced through humanitarian prevention, preparedness and response. Hence, a plethora of opportunities — from ‘clusters’ to the United Nations’ proposed biennial report, from governmental planning initiatives to private sector forums — have to reflect a wider range of interests than traditional ‘humanitarians’. In light of the enduring issue of mass displacement, planning forums should be established to identify ways to address their needs and those whom they affect. Where relevant, representa- tives of both have to be included in the integrated forums noted above. Social networks need to be brought into planning delib- erations and planning forums. Attention must also be given to robotics and related technologies to determine what might be regarded as an emerging spectrum of new actors. Fourth, sources for innovation have to look beyond self- imposed limits of discovery, and to actively seek ‘innovation intelligence’ that would introduce a multiplicity of actors whose innovations were not necessarily intended for humani- tarian purposes. Stepping outside the limits of discovery is a function as well as a reflection of effective anticipation and adaptation, and should include: • Utilizing sources that capture different types of innovations through networks such as Knowledge Point, intended among other things to capture and disseminate local innovations into planning processes • Open-ended exploration of research institutes and companies to identify new technologies that could improve humanitarian action • Testing new innovations such as teleportation, tactile communications and 3D and 4D printing for potential to humanitarian action. The fifth step is to identify new forms of collaboration. The nature of humanitarian actors will change and so will the concept of collaboration. The traditional humanitarian sector presumes that collaborationwas defined by needs defined by humanitarians. The emerging reality, however, is that an ever-widening group of actors will be engaged in humanitarian-related action based upon their respective, sector-specific motives and concerns. Collaboration, therefore, will increasingly be based upon an appreciation of self-interests, respective value added and comparative advan- tages. Collaborative action needs to reflect a clear understanding of the respective interests of those who may be affected by crisis threats or ongoing crises. This will mean that criteria determined by perceived mutual self-interests will underpin a more endur- ing basis for collaboration. Arrangements with those institutions that have extraterrestrial capacities should be required to assist in surveying potential Earth-based threats, including potential violence, as well as to anticipate possible outer-space threats. Aspects of this initiative would also feed into the proposed United Nations integrated futures planning initiative. Efforts are required to determine how best to engage with virtual networks to provide effective prevention, preparedness and response action. Sixth, we need to examine the rationale for humanitar- ian action. As discussed, the perceived universal morality that underpins humanitarian principles too often ignores the cultural, historic, sociological and social-psychological dimensions that determine different societal attitudes. Greater sensitivity to this reality means that those wishing to be truly humanitarian will have to cease taking such universals for granted, and practice the art of recognizing mutually empa- thetic values on a case-by-case basis. This is a hard prospect but perhaps our best one: a humanism prepared to negotiate across borders unaccompanied by non-negotiable universals. Humanism recognizes that the so-called moral stance has too often led to disguised and most likely unintended conde- scension between provider and recipient. Mutual self-interest is a major step towards equality, in a world where any crisis threat ultimately has global consequences. Greater emphasis must be given to ways to accommodate different concepts of principles as they relate to human agency and humanitarian action. Education and training across a broad spectrum of the sciences and humanities should include the perspective that all aspects of human existence will have to contend with humanitarian threats which ultimately spill over into practical day-to-day geopolitical and socioeconomic interests. T ogether W e S tand