This article discusses the increasing blurring of lines between humanitarian actors, foreign troops engaged in counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism, and donor states pursuing national security and stabilisation. In several complex emergencies with foreign troops on the ground there has also been a sharp increase in violence against humanitarian workers, in absolute numbers and in rates: this escalation cannot be justified solely by the growth of the aid system. Moreover, while in global terms the humanitarian footprint is expanding, in some contexts (South and Central Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Chad, Darfur and Iraq) the trend is reversed, mainly due to withdrawals and suspension of activities following security incidents, threats or bans from the de facto ruling authorities.
The blurring of international military, political and humanitarian agendas is fed by factors including: UN integration; military involvement in relief aid; whole-of-government stabilization efforts; counter-terrorism legislation; and ‘humanitarian’ interventions invoking the Responsibility to Protect norm. The impact of the blurring of lines on the ability of humanitarian agencies to access their beneficiaries is context-specific and, perhaps most importantly, agency-specific. That is, it is not just driven by external factors beyond the agencies’ control, but also by the steps and choices taken by the humanitarian organizations in a given scenario, as well as by their own mandate.
Political violence against aid workers cannot be blamed just on misperceptions due to the blurring of lines. On the one hand, ‘associative targeting’ may be due to an apparent breach of the principles of neutrality and independence, which may lead a warring party to perceive that the humanitarian agency is backing its foe. On the other hand, ‘direct targeting’ is intrinsic to the nature of humanitarian work, and is due to the direct influence of relief agencies in the conflict, or linked to their cultural and ethnic identity. This way, when civilians are deliberately targeted, assisting civilians may also be perceived as taking sides; thus, aid agencies can become targets as well.
The blurring of lines might be a key driver of violence against aid workers in Afghanistan, but, apparently, it does not play such a relevant role in explaining attack trends in Sudan and Somalia:
- Available data suggests that in Afghanistan, the blur of mandates and agendas is a key driver of both attacks against aid workers and loss of access; however, in this country aid workers are not only being targets by association, but also becoming direct targets due to their involvement in local conflict dynamics, rent-seeking behaviours and other causes that have nothing to do with misunderstandings about their identity and mission.
- In Somalia, the blurring of agendas and widespread suspicion around humanitarian agencies’ missions is hindering access to most of the central and southern regions – areas controlled by rebel movements. However, the international community’s current political and military support for the local government does not seem to have much explanatory power when analysing causes of violence against aid workers (perhaps because the baseline was already extremely high).
- In Sudan, the national government restricts humanitarians’ access, perceiving humanitarian agencies as a part of a larger international political agenda. However, looking at the available data, it is hard to claim that the blurring of lines is a significant driver of violence in this country. It is rather the size of the humanitarian enterprise in Sudan that mostly determines the variation of violence against aid workers, with war-profiteers and rent-seekers apparently behind most of the incidents.
