The ongoing crisis in Yemen has required an international emergency humanitarian response. Using the literature, critically appraise the nature of the event and the relief response that was mounted focusing specifically on health care. You must answer: What were the humanitarian response standards at the time? How closely did the response match the expected response? What were the lessons identified from the response and how have they influenced the response standards? Were there missed learning opportunities? Deconstruct the question, there are 4 parts that need to be included: WHO EMT standards? SPHERE version? Does the disaster have to have ended? Lessons identified?
Guerilla ambushes only accentuated the problems further. Hart suggests that “the number of French deaths alone during this period averaged 100 a day” which resulted in “the overwhelming majority of losses which drained the French strength, and their moral still more…” This argument has much validity to it as both Colonel Marbot and the historian Gates provide an identical figure which could suggest that the figure is a valid estimate. Despite this the losses do help to illustrate the loss of morale amongst French soldiers in the peninsula which in turn played a major role in French losses in Spain and therefore Napoleon’s ultimate downfall in 1815. Contradictory to this, other socio-economic factors played far greater roles in the downfall of Napoleon for example his ‘continental blockade.’ This came after the defeat of the Franco-Spanish fleet by Nelson at Trafalgar in October 1805, Anglo Naval supremacy had been solidified and in turn any hope Napoleon once had for a French invasion was decimated. The trade embargo on all British goods had negative economic consequences for all of Europe, including France, which saw states like Portugal, Russia and the Netherlands refuse the boycott. According to Smith “The trade war with Britain was one which was outside of Napoleon’s control and one which he was doomed to lose.” This argument has much validity to it as without naval supremacy it would be impossible for Napoleon to prevent the British trading with the whole of mainland Europe moreover, Britain acted as a major trading partner with many European nations and so the trade embargo’s detrimental impact was not only foreseeable but, inevitable. This negative economic impact was illustrated by Tsar Alexander when he was forced to resume trading with Britain as “adherence to the Continental system has brought the economy of Russia to the brink of collapse” according to Smith which in turn lead to the Tsar’s decision to raise tariffs on French goods in favour of British imports on the last day of 1810. Schroeder agrees when he states that “The central fact about the Continental system is it was anti-economic from the ground up, in spirit and essence” hence why it was bound to be unpopular, unfeasable and ultimately unsuccessful. Despite this Napoleon insisted on its implementation even after the defection of Portugal and Russia and the chaos it was causing in France. By implementing the system Napoleon had declared an economic war on Britain and so without naval superiority French merchants were unable to transport goods via the sea which in turn meant that they could only trade with Europe. The insistence from Napoleon on the implementation of his ‘continental system’ helps to illustrate how his obsession with Britain in combination with his inability to take advice mutated into both the Spanish ulcer and the Russia campaign which in turn caused his downfall. This is showcased by Smith as “‘During 1811 the French economy was in poor shape; the ministers of finance pleaded with the emperor to maintain peace so that he might recover. Napoleon’s response was short and sharp ‘Not at all! It is true our finances are disordered, but that i>GET ANSWER