Is humanitarian aid failing?

In today’s conflicts, humanitarian aid is increasingly tied to political interests. Principles are often secondary to politics, leading – some argue – to unequal distribution of aid and greater loss of life. In Afghanistan, some believe, aid was a ‘fig leaf’ for political inaction. In the Balkans, selective aid is said to have directly harmed some refugees. Is the merging of aid and politics acceptable? Have the traditional principles of humanitarianism failed?

The dividing line between politics and aid was finally eroded in 1999, when NATO waged its ‘humanitarian war’ in Kosovo. Is such a war justified? What are the consequences for humanitarian actors? Is it acceptable to leave individuals without aid for political reasons? Should humanitarian action be considered an act of charity or an internationally and legally agreed obligation? An Overseas Development Institute paper reports on the proceedings from a recent conference examining the uneasy relationship between humanitarian aid and politics.

In broaching these questions, the report firstly examines the current political context for humanitarian action. It discusses the dynamics, outcomes and implications of the ‘coherence agenda’ underpinning the new humanitarianism. Questioning the notion of a ‘humanitarian’ war, the report describes the diverging views on what constitutes appropriate principles to guide humanitarianism. It is clear that traditional humanitarian principles are incompatible with the merging of aid and politics. Is this ‘new humanitarianism’ acceptable? How should agencies respond to the new ‘humanitarian’ reality?

Key issues arising from the conference are:

• There was consensus that traditional principles of humanitarian action do not correspond to the new principles underlying the merging of humanitarian aid and politics.
• There is conflict between the traditional principles of neutrality and impartiality, and conflict management.
• The politicisation of humanitarian assistance and the exclusion resulting from it had a negative effect on the lives of vulnerable groups in Serbia, and devalued the currency of humanitarianism in the eyes of the Serbs.
• Some argued that humanitarian agencies need to speak out far more strongly to push back the political voice in the current politicisation of humanitarian assistance.
• Others suggested that agencies should find their own place on a spectrum between purely political considerations and traditional humanitarianism, according to their mandates and funding sources.

Policy implications include the following:

• Humanitarian actors should be conscious of their roles and should be clear about which principles they wish to uphold.
• Similarly, humanitarian agencies need to decide whether they want to be co-opted by the state, act as a substitute for it, or contest its assumptions.
• Humanitarian agencies need to define clearly and delimit their activities so that they can focus on doing their work without compromising the safety of their staff or the notion of humanitarian space and access.
• It was suggested that the word ‘humanitarian’ should refer only to actions that meet specific humanitarian criteria. Agencies may choose to engage in political and conflict-reduction interventions, but that these should not necessarily be called ‘humanitarian’.

Source(s):
‘Politics and Humanitarian Aid: Debates, Dilemmas and Dissension’, HPG Report #10, Overseas Development Institute: London by D. Curtis, 2001 Full document.
See also ‘Special Issue of Disasters: The Journal of Disaster Studies, Policy and Management’, Vol 25, No 4, 2001

id21 Research Highlight: 27 May 2002

Further Information:
Devon Curtis
Department of International Relations
London School of Economics
Houghton Street
London WC2A 2AE

Contact the contributor: d.e.curtis@lse.ac.uk

London School of Economics, UK

Humanitarian Practice Group (HPG)
Overseas Development Institute
111 Westminster Bridge Road
London SE1 7JD
UK

Tel: +44 (0)20 7922 0300
Fax: +44 (0)20 7922 0399
Contact the contributor: hpgadmin@odi.org.uk

Humanitarian Policy Group, ODI, UK

Other related links:
'Politics vs aid?' Insights #39

'The future of aid? Building peace in Afghanistan'

'Aid without accountability? North Korea challenges humanitarian principles'

The World Bank features Aid Effectiveness Research

Reality of Aid is an independent review of poverty reduction and development assistance

'From Humanitarian Assistance to Poverty Reduction in Angola' from WIDER

Eldis provides further links to Aid research