Ongoing Crises

Origin and history

The concept of "Ongoing Crises" as a distinct analytical framework for understanding protracted conflicts emerged from academic and policy circles in the Global North, particularly the United States and Western Europe, in the late 20th century. Its development accelerated in the 1990s following the end of the Cold War, as the nature of warfare shifted from interstate conflicts to complex, intrastate struggles. This framework was further refined by international institutions and think tanks in the early 2000s, aiming to categorize situations where violent conflict, political instability, and humanitarian need become chronic conditions. The terminology gained widespread journalistic and diplomatic usage in the 2010s, becoming a standard label for describing seemingly unresolvable situations. Its application is not tied to a single founding document or event but evolved from the need to analyze conflicts that defy conventional peacemaking timelines. The framework's historical roots lie in post-Cold War security studies and the humanitarian sector's experience with long-term displacement and recurrent emergencies.

What it is for

The "Ongoing Crises" framework serves to analyze and communicate the nature of conflicts and emergencies that persist for a decade or more, often with fluctuating intensity but no clear resolution. Its primary function is to shift perception from viewing a crisis as a temporary shock to understanding it as a complex system of entrenched political, economic, and social failures. It is used by humanitarian organizations to advocate for sustained funding and long-term programming beyond immediate emergency relief. For policymakers and diplomats, it provides a structure for designing interventions that address root causes rather than just symptoms, although such interventions are often unsuccessful. Academics employ the framework to study the dynamics of state fragility, the political economy of war, and the normalization of violence within societies. For media, it offers a shorthand to contextualize recurring news from specific regions without repeating exhaustive background in every report.

Overview

An "Ongoing Crisis" is characterized by the prolonged breakdown of state authority, the proliferation of armed non-state actors, and the severe degradation of public infrastructure and services. These situations typically feature large-scale, protracted displacement of populations, both internally and as refugees, creating long-term dependencies on international aid. The crises are often regional in their spillover effects, impacting neighboring countries through refugee flows, arms trafficking, and economic disruption. They frequently involve a complex interplay of local grievances, regional geopolitics, and international interventions, which can sometimes perpetuate the conflict. The humanitarian consequences are profound, with generations growing up knowing only conflict, leading to lost development, deep trauma, and eroded social cohesion. These conditions create a self-perpetuating cycle where war economies develop, and political solutions become increasingly elusive over time.

What to know

It is crucial to understand that "Ongoing Crises" are not natural disasters but are fundamentally political in origin, rooted in governance failures, identity-based exclusion, and competition over resources. The international response is often fragmented, with humanitarian aid sometimes inadvertently sustaining conflict dynamics by becoming a resource for warring parties. Media coverage tends to be episodic, spiking during escalations of violence or major humanitarian milestones but fading during periods of "silent emergency," creating a misleading perception of inactivity. These crises are rarely contained within official battlefields; they reshape entire societies, economies, and landscapes, often causing environmental degradation. The legal and normative frameworks for protecting civilians, such as International Humanitarian Law, are routinely violated with near-total impunity in these contexts. For a Latin American reader, drawing parallels to periods of protracted internal conflict in the region's own history can provide a useful, though not direct, comparative perspective on the erosion of institutions and social fabric.

Common questions

Why do these crises last so long when the international community is aware of them? The duration is due to a misalignment of interests where local conflict actors benefit from the status quo and external powers prioritize geopolitical stability or counter-terrorism over peace. How are they different from a conventional war? They lack clear front lines, a single recognized belligerent, and any foreseeable endpoint for military or political victory. What happens to the people who live there? Populations develop sophisticated survival strategies, but face extreme vulnerability, with access to basic needs like food, water, and healthcare determined by proximity to armed groups or aid corridors. Can humanitarian aid solve an Ongoing Crisis? No, aid addresses suffering but cannot resolve the underlying political disputes; it is a palliative measure, not a cure. Why don't people just leave? Many do, becoming refugees or internally displaced, but movement is constrained by poverty, closed borders, threats of violence, and deep ties to land and community. Is there any hope for resolution? Resolution requires a fundamental shift in the political calculations of the main armed actors, often precipitated by military stalemate or external pressure, which can take decades to emerge.

Pros and cons

A significant pro of the "Ongoing Crises" framework is that it forces a long-term view, discouraging the illusion of a quick fix and encouraging planning for sustainable humanitarian and development interventions. It also helps consolidate academic and policy expertise around specific regional conflicts, building deep institutional knowledge. However, a major con is that the label can lead to fatalism and donor fatigue, where the situation is seen as a permanent, unsolvable background condition, ultimately reducing international attention and resources. Another critical drawback is that it can homogenize distinct conflicts under a single umbrella term, obscuring their unique historical and political drivers. Those who regret its use are often frontline humanitarian workers who see how the terminology can bureaucratize suffering and distance policymakers from the urgent realities on the ground. A common mistake is to assume that because a crisis is "ongoing," the needs and power dynamics within it are static, when in fact they are constantly evolving, requiring adaptable responses.

Who it suits

The "Ongoing Crises" framework primarily suits analysts, academics, and senior policymakers who require a macro-level understanding of conflict dynamics over extended periods. It is useful for journalists specializing in foreign affairs or humanitarian reporting, providing a necessary structure for explaining complex, long-running stories to a general audience. Humanitarian agency headquarters and donor institutions rely on this framework for strategic planning, advocacy, and resource allocation across multi-year horizons. It does not suit, and can even harm, the understanding of local communities living within the crisis, for whom the framing may not reflect their daily realities, aspirations, or agency. Military strategists focused on short-term stabilization or counter-insurgency may find the framework too broad for tactical planning. For the engaged Latin American reader, the framework is most suitable for those seeking to move beyond headline-driven understanding to grasp the structural and international dimensions of conflicts in regions like the Sahel, the Middle East, or Central Asia.