Experts wrestle with war zone aid ethics

Date: 02/04/1998

AID experts will meet in London next week to try to resolve the increasingly difficult issue of when to give humanitarian assistance in the wake of conflicts and with what conditions attached.

The debate, led jointly by the UK's Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO), reflects growing pressure for international rules to guide humanitarian work in the post-Cold War era.

"Emergency aid is increasingly trapped in a minefield of political confrontation, ruthless manipulation by warring parties and violence against field workers," said conference organisers Forum Europe.

"Whether in Somalia, Rwanda, Afghanistan or the former Yugoslavia, it is increasingly alleged that humanitarian aid does more harm than good. We need to think again about how and why we intervene."

Traditionally, humanitarian aid has been guided by strict concepts of independence, neutrality and impartiality first developed by the Red Cross as 'fundamental principles'.

But as warring parties increasingly flout the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilian populations, this approach is being condemned by many as 'neutrality towards injustice'.

This has led to an increasingly polarised debate between those who remain convinced that politics should in no way influence humanitarian aid and reformers who argue that aid should be used to encourage longer-lasting solutions.

The US places itself in the latter camp. Even in Europe there is a growing feeling that humanitarian aid should be more explicitly linked to conflict resolution and peace-building efforts.

Humanitarian Aid Commissioner Emma Bonino recently surprised colleagues by openly criticising Laurent Kabila, president of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Preview and reports of an ODI/ECHO conference on when to give humanitarian assistance in the wake of conflicts, London, April 1998.