Humanitarian Aid in Conflict

Humanitarian aid is defined by the Global Humanitarian Assistance organisation as aid 'intended to save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain human dignity during and after man-made crisis' (Global Humanitarian Assistance, 2017). This type of aid is often given in conflict zones, ‘an area marked by extreme violence’ (Merriam- Webster, n.d.). Conflict effects the local population as it causes illness and injury, as well as creating an environment where there may be harassment of specific groups and forced displacement. It can also result in the destruction of places of importance, crops, and economic and social infrastructure such as hospitals and schools (Perrin, 1998). It is important that countries and organisations with the financial means donate humanitarian aid to places in a state of conflict as they have a moral obligation to save the lives of and prevent the suffering of other human beings (Ball, n.d.). Between 2002 and 2011, 15 out of 20 of the countries which receive the largest amounts of humanitarian aid were either currently experiencing or had recently experienced major civil conflict (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). Despite the necessity of humanitarian aid, there are many criticisms of its uses, particuarlly in conflict situations, where it can increase violence, prolong conflict, create further problems within the country of conflict and be used as a tool by the donor to push their own politics and policies.

The provision of humanitarian aid in conflict zones can be attributed to an increase in rebel violence. There are two main ways in which this happens, the provision of aid to non-combatants can encourage looting by rebel forces as they attempt to acquire supplies, and, where rebels see humanitarian aid projects and organisations as a political force or as a challenge to their local authority they are more likely to use violence as a means of control (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). In most conflict situations rebel groups are the weaker party and thus experience pressure to secure resources. Rebel organisations benefit massively from the procurement of aid packages as they do not need to process or sell any resources before they are beneficial; food, medical resources and vehicles can be put to immediate use (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). Whilst looting supplies during the civil war in Sierra Leone, members of the Revolutionary United Front attacked, killed, and abducted refugees staying in camps along the Guinean border (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). Rebels in Monrovia during the Liberian Civil War took possession of around $20 million of aid (Wood & Sullivan, 2015) and members of the Lord’s Resistance Army attacked inhabitants of a settlement camp in Uganda killing and kidnapping inhabitants whilst looting food and other supplies (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). Moreover, rebels are likely to perceive aid organisations as a threat to their control of the local population, particuarlly where they are seen as a tool of the government or where they advocate non-violence and reconciliation (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). Studies by Fiona Terry and Ashley Jackson & Antonio Giustozzi show links between neutrality of aid organisations and increased Taliban violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). Furthermore, the high concentration of civillians that amass around aid sites presents the opportunity for rebel organisations to turn civillians to their cause. This gives them the ability to increase their control and access to the local population and aid resources, as well as their military and organisational capabilities, and they can act as a more significant challenge to the government (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). On the other hand, rebel organisations are likely to use violence, or the threat of it, to control local populations even where there are other feasible ways of gaining control, and unless aid groups work under the authority of rebel organisations violence is the most likely rebel strategy (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). Whilst it can be argued that rebels are likely to resort to violence with or without the provision of aid, there is indisputable evidence that aid and the presence of organisations who provide it increases the risk of rebel violence and endangers civillians.

Whilst the increase in rebel violence is more obvious and predictable, the provision of humanitarian aid can also increase violence from the state. Aid supports the basic needs of the population, such as food, water, and shelter, meaning that the government can reallocate money that they had previously been spending on these basic needs to purchasing more weaponry. The diversion of these resources can thus result in greater amounts of violence from the state (Perrin, 1998). As discussed above, rebel forces often take control of and utilize aid, as well as using the populations of civillians who aggregate around aid sites as a recruitment source. It becomes difficult to distinguish rebels and civillians from each other, incentivising governments to attack areas such as refugee camps (Wood & Sullivan, 2015), increasing indiscriminate state violence. In Syria, government military forces killed civilians living in refugee camps outside Damascus when they suspected them of providing aid to rebelling forces (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). Unlike the links between aid and rebel violence, there are many reasons why humanitarian aid may result in a decrease in state violence. Governments often utilise humanitarian aid as a force to reduce social and economic instability, as well as to increase civilian support for the state (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). The presence of the international community at aid sites results in heightened international scrutiny reducing the incidents of state violence (Wood & Sullivan, 2015). Although it is possible to justify the increased violence of governments with the increased violence of rebel organisations, is clear that aid, and actions of rebel organisations around aid, threatens the safety of civilians.

Humanitarian aid can also result in a longer conflict than would have prehaps otherwise happened. When citizens are being looked after by humanitarian aid schemes, there is less urgency for the conflict to be settled, and both governments and rebel groups can neglect the needs of their citizens choosing instead to spend their money on weaponry (Perrin, 1998). This can lead to a prolonged conflict. The way in which aid is distributed can also impact on the duration of conflict. When humanitarian organisations begin distributing aid, they become part of the conflict. Although many organisations practice neutrality in volatile conflict situations, if they choose to show solidarity to one side, there is the possibility that the faction who receive help will be less willing to engage in peace negotiations (Smock, 1996). Furthermore, there may be situations in which the NGO’s providing aid have more than the government - usually later on in a conflict - creating an imbalance, which makes it difficult for institutions to build peace (Smock, 1996). Despite this, the implementation of humanitarian aid in conflict zones can help to shorten conflicts by re-opening dialogue between warring parties (Perrin, 1998).

Humanitarian aid in conflict zones can also have other negative impacts, although there is less reasearch and evidence to back them up. For example, in situations where the government is weak, aid organisations may choose to set up a parallel economy or a health care system which is not associated with the state. Whilst the intentions of these schemes are positive, it can exacerbate the problems within the already weak state, quickening their collapse and increasing the risk of violence (Perrin, 1998). Humanitarian aid is often organised or funded by world governments, even if it is distributed by NGO’s, meaning that they can use it to push their own foreign policies. This can result in ineffective aid, as well as aid which is rescinded when a recipient does not follow the requirements of the donor country.

In conclusion, humanitarian aid in conflict zones has great potential to increase violence, both from rebel and state factions, as well as prolong conflicts, and push the political agendas of donors. Despite these criticisms, humanitarian aid is vital in preserving the lives of noncombats and ensuring recovery, and for this reason should be present in conflicts. They must, however, be mindful of how they can perpetuate conflict and take steps to ensure that they are having the smallest negative impact possible.