The problem with humanitarian aid is that it is exactly what it implies, aid. It is not a solution, it is not sustainable, it is not permanent, it is not on-going. A friend once had a conversation with me about how the current market system under capitalism teach us the lassiez-faire philosophy, that if everyone is striving after their own self-interest, the market will balance itself out, everyone wins. I feel like this has to some extent translated into social dynamics as well, everyone strives to better themselves, leaving others to sort out their own problems, no one is willing to interfere in the name of privacy, tolerance and respect. However in situations of humanitarian crisis we try and halt this system. We tell less development countries that interference is necessary, sovereignty be damned. This is despite the fact that loans given by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank are often contingent on liberalisation of markets and an application of lassiez faire principles practiced in wealthier nations.
Information warning of the current drought in the Horn of Africa has been available for about a year, and could have been prevented or lessened in affect. However as world leaders are loath to act on predictions and loath to invest and interfere until absolutely necessary, it creates a cycle of emergency instead of sustainability. I don't pretend to know the answer, but I do know the solution starts when people become more then an economic figure and the concept of interfering in our neighbours business doesn't exist because we are always invovled in the lives of those around us.
More info on the drought in the Horn of Africa:
http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/special-coverage-horn-of-africa-hunger-crisis/
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportID=93337
http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/qa-the-headaches-of-getting-aid-to-famine-stricken-somalia/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/12/us-ethiopia-drought-idUSTRE76B32N20110712
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportID=93331
