International Humanitarian Aid: Aims, History, and Outcomes

Introduction

Humanitarian aid represents a commitment to support vulnerable host populations that have experienced a sudden emergency, requiring ongoing assistance to maintain or improve their quality of life. Over the past 15 years, the number of humanitarian agencies, private organizations, governments, corporations, individuals, and other stakeholders has grown enormously. This diverse group of donors operates under differing mandates, values, goals, strategies, and activities, but most function under one universal humanitarian principle: to protect the vulnerable by decreasing morbidity and mortality, alleviating suffering, and enhancing well-being, human dignity, and quality of life.

However, many stakeholders believe that humanitarian aid has been unsuccessful in delivering on these promises due to a lack of coordination and duplication of services — resulting in a failure to meet the needs of those it is meant to benefit. Humanitarian aid, with its diverse mandates, roles, people, timelines, and funding, as well as the absence of clear definitions to describe specific identities (purpose, principles), presents a chaotic and confusing image to the public, host governments, and recipients, as well as ongoing challenges for agencies and aid workers. Since appreciable donor finances total billions of dollars annually, these critiques present serious credibility and survival issues to agencies that depend on donor funding to save and improve the lives of the vulnerable. It is for this compelling reason that it is important to deconstruct the roles of and linkages between emergency, relief, and development aid; identify problems that impact effectiveness and sustainability; and acknowledge progress and successes both past and present.

Externalities of Humanitarian Aid

Humanitarian aid can, in some contexts, contribute to increased violence in conflicts. If diverted, resources can be used to buy arms and thereby aggravate the conflict. The beneficiaries of aid — whether the general civilian population or detainees — may become targets of armed groups trying to seize relief supplies. Such victimization takes different forms:

Pressure on or harassment of aid beneficiaries to relinquish part of the aid they have received; the forcible enlistment of young men, or even the displacement of entire population groups, by armed groups when food distribution prompts large gatherings; large groups of civilians taken hostage to serve as "bait" for humanitarian aid, which is then misappropriated by armed groups; direct attacks on people receiving aid (looting, murder); and attacks on humanitarian warehouses and convoys.

Humanitarian aid often serves as a substitute for action that should be taken by the warring parties themselves, helping those parties to shirk their responsibilities. Where the state has been weakened, humanitarian aid can contribute directly to exacerbating the situation — in particular by setting up a parallel economy or a non-state healthcare system run by aid organizations. This effect is all the more serious when it occurs in a state already in the process of collapsing, as it can hasten that collapse and increase the risk of unrestrained violence.

But humanitarian aid can also help reduce violence. It both relieves and prevents suffering — by providing treatment for the wounded, food supplies, sanitation, and more — and thus helps alleviate the silent forms of violence embedded in armed conflict: hunger, thirst, and disease. Aid also helps reduce violations of international humanitarian law, which are very direct forms of violence. In all armed conflicts, the ICRC reminds the warring parties of their obligations, particularly where non-combatants are concerned. For example, "the ICRC calls on all the parties involved to abide by the rules of international humanitarian law, and in particular to make a clear distinction between civilians and combatants and to respect persons who are not or are no longer taking part in the hostilities." [10] An appeal such as this is the first stage in the ICRC's work, aimed at preventing violations of international humanitarian law — so-called primary prevention. Prevention work will be all the more effective if the ICRC is present on an ongoing basis, as is the case with aid operations. This presence constitutes a mode of protection for the victims, and thus helps lessen violence in conflicts. The following excerpt from a weekly bulletin of ICRC-related news illustrates this point:

"After territories previously controlled by Fikret Abdic were taken over by Bosnian troops from Bihac on 7 August last, more than 20,000 Muslims fled Velika Kladusa heading for Vojnic in Croatia. They are clustered along seven kilometres of road and are surviving thanks to an ICRC emergency operation. Despite the aid provided by ICRC delegates in terms of medical care, food, and hygiene, these people are living in very precarious conditions. They have for example only fifty houses in which to seek shelter. For more than a fortnight the ICRC, which fears for the safety of these people, has had two delegates constantly present among them." [11]

But the mere presence of humanitarian personnel is not always enough to prevent violence. When they witness lawlessness, they must take all possible steps not just to help its victims but also to ensure that violations do not recur. This may be done by reminding states of their obligations. The following excerpt from an ICRC Annual Report is an example:

"After the mass expulsions in the Bijeljina region, the ICRC President called a meeting of all Geneva-based diplomatic representatives of the international community at the ICRC headquarters on 7 September. In his formal address, he spoke out strongly against the brutal harassment, discrimination, hostage-taking, arbitrary detention, forcible displacement, forced labour, and other, sometimes worse, forms of ill-treatment suffered by civilians in the conflict areas of the former Yugoslavia, and the Muslim population of Bosnia-Herzegovina in particular. The President called on the parties to the conflict to put an end to these practices and reminded all the states party to the Geneva Conventions of their collective obligation to ensure that the provisions of international humanitarian law were respected in all circumstances." [12]

History and Background of International Aid Agencies

The beginnings of organized international humanitarian aid can be traced to the late nineteenth century. One of the first such examples occurred in response to the Northern Chinese Famine of 1876–1879, brought about by a drought that began in northern China in 1875 and led to crop failures in the following years. As many as 10 million people may have died in the famine. British missionary Timothy Richard first called international attention to the famine in Shandong in the summer of 1876 and appealed to the foreign community in Shanghai for money to help the victims. The Shandong Famine Relief Committee was soon established with the participation of diplomats, businessmen, and Protestant and Roman Catholic missionaries. To combat the famine, an international network was set up to solicit donations. These efforts brought in 204,000 silver taels, the equivalent of $7–10 million in 2012 silver prices. [4]

A simultaneous campaign was launched in response to the Great Famine of 1876–78 in India. Although the authorities have been criticized for their laissez-faire attitude during the famine, relief measures were introduced toward the end. A Famine Relief Fund was set up in the United Kingdom and had raised £426,000 within the first few months.

Early attempts were in private hands and were limited in their financial and organizational capabilities. It was only in the 1980s that global news coverage and celebrity endorsement were mobilized to galvanize large-scale, government-led famine relief in response to disasters around the world. The 1983–85 famine in Ethiopia caused upwards of one million deaths and was documented by a BBC news crew, with Michael Buerk describing "a biblical famine in the 20th century" and "the closest thing to hell on Earth." [5] Live Aid, a 1985 fund-raising effort headed by Bob Geldof, induced millions of people in the West to donate money and to urge their governments to participate in the relief effort in Ethiopia. Some of the proceeds also went to the famine-affected areas of Eritrea. [6]

Conclusion

The competing visions within the humanitarian community — between charity and rights, between neutrality and political engagement, between economic development and direct poverty alleviation — reflect enduring tensions that show no signs of easy resolution. From the earliest organized famine relief efforts of the nineteenth century through the complex donor landscape of today, humanitarian aid has continually evolved in response to political, ideological, and practical pressures. As the sector grapples with questions of effectiveness, accountability, and legitimacy, the debate between needs-based and rights-based approaches remains central. Resolving it requires not only clarity of principle but also honest reckoning with the real-world consequences — intended and unintended — of how aid is designed, delivered, and evaluated.