Consequences of humanitarian aid in war zones

Solly Rakgomo | Sunday November 9, 2025 12:39

These principles were established so that humanitarian action would be separate from politics and could not be politicised. Over time, another approach emerged from Woodrow Wilson, who believed that humanitarian aid in disaster and conflict crises could not be short-term assistance alone.

In 1990, humanitarian organisations began to direct humanitarian action towards resolving the root causes of a crisis, bringing action into the process of transformation and politics (Barnett, 2005). This kind of action is expected to bring society into a state of positive peace, so that reforms are needed in each field to prevent similar crises from occurring by entering the realm of politics and development.

With this approach, many humanitarian organisations are willing to work with countries to provide protection in the form of armed forces, negotiations, and aid distribution in crises involving conflict. This kind of cooperation does help in terms of efficiency, resources, and reach, but it does not mean that there is no price to pay. There are basic principles of humanitarian action, such as neutrality and independence, that must be sacrificed.

A critical approach works by criticising previous concepts because the humanitarian system is essentially in a world full of power and political interests. The violation of humanitarian action principles and principles that are prone to causing the humanitarian paradox.

In the concept of the humanitarian paradox, humanitarian action intended to reduce the suffering of individuals or groups who are victims can actually perpetuate the source of suffering that should be overcome (Terry, 2000). In line with Terry’s (2000) statement, Tanguy (2000) also stated, in a panel discussion held by the Institute for International Liberal Education, that humanitarian aid provided can be taxed, misused, looted, and even used as a means of extortion to build internal and international legitimacy, thereby maintaining ethnic cleansing. This essay aims to explore how and why humanitarian aid can have paradoxical effects in situations of conflict or crisis through a discussion of the humanitarian paradox theoretical framework, aid mechanisms that can produce paradoxical effects, and case studies.

All activities within the framework of humanitarian action that have the potential to cause further conflict or fail to alleviate the suffering of victims fall under the concept of the humanitarian paradox proposed by Terry (2000). These activities may be deliberately politicised and manipulated by actors involved in the conflict.

The humanitarian paradox arises in several conditions of humanitarian action carried out by donor countries and humanitarian organisations. First, Henry Dunant’s concept of assisting war victims, including wounded soldiers, could actually enable them to return to the battlefield, given that intergovernmental agreements do not regulate the prevention of wounded soldiers returning to the battlefield and could actually prolong the war (Terry, 2000).

Based on this explanation, the war that would result from this would certainly not be in line with the intent and purpose of humanitarian action as defined in its definition to reduce the suffering of victims. For example, during World War II, soldiers who suffered psychological trauma were evacuated to medical aid posts to be given sodium amytal so they could sleep for up to 48 hours, and 50-70 percent of soldiers returned to the battlefield within three days (Decuers, 2020). Another case, as discussed in Teryy’s (2000) writing, was the refugee camp in Zaire during the Rwandan conflict, which was established as a shelter for civilians but instead became a refuge for perpetrators of genocide to control the distribution of humanitarian aid so that those responsible for the genocide could maintain the status quo. Second, humanitarian aid cannot be completely separated from the economic structures created by those responsible for the war (Terry, 2000).

Aid sent by humanitarian organisations often becomes a valuable commodity sought after by various actors involved in the war. Conflicting parties can use aid as a source of income through various mechanisms, such as reselling the aid they receive, collecting taxes from humanitarian organisations, and using aid to build political support for those responsible for the war. These indications may imply that the war will continue due to the economic dynamics supported by these activities. Although these actions are intended to alleviate the suffering of victims, they indirectly support the war.

For example, in Somalia, after the collapse of Siad Barre’s government, militia groups took control of the region and demanded security payments from humanitarian organisations for aid to be delivered. This money then became part of the war economy.

Third, the presence of humanitarian organisations in conflict areas can be seen as political legitimisation of armed actors and government regimes involved in and responsible for the war (Terry, 2000). Legitimisation in this context refers to direct or indirect recognition of a group’s legitimate political position.

Humanitarian organisations should uphold the principle of humanitarian action to reduce the suffering of victims. However, humanitarian organisations often have to meet, negotiate, and even cooperate with armed groups and government regimes to access aid delivery channels. The negotiation process can be indirectly considered as granting political legitimacy because it shows that they are recognised and considered legitimate to represent their people.

This can strengthen the political position of those responsible for the war and make them more confident to continue fighting, rather than stop. For example, in the case of Somalia, the emergence of two major militia leaders, Ali Mahdi and Mohammed Farah Aidid, after the fall of the Siad Barre regime led them to fight over the capital city of Mogadishu. When US envoy Robert Oakley negotiated with the two militia leaders, the event was broadcast by the international media, making the two militia leaders feel that they were considered to have official status as representatives of the Somali people. In this case, the US’s initial intention was to facilitate the distribution of humanitarian aid, but it inadvertently strengthened the political position of those responsible for the war.

Fourth, humanitarian aid that actually becomes a tool for controlling and manipulating civil society (Terry, 2000). Governments and armed groups responsible for many conflicts often regulate the distribution of aid so that the people remain loyal to the regime. This aid becomes a tool for controlling the affected population.

People who are victims and dependent on aid are vulnerable to manipulation. Again, in principle, this indirectly does not alleviate the suffering of the victims. An example of this is what happened in Ethiopia during a period of famine. At that time, the Ethiopian government regime used food aid distribution to control the movement of citizens and force them to participate in relocation programs that were politically and militarily motivated. Citizens who came to the aid distribution sites were forced onto military trucks for relocation.

Here, the aid provided by humanitarian organisations indirectly created new problems regarding forced relocation by the government, showing that the community was subject to repressive power.

Therefore, the conclusion that can be drawn is that many humanitarian actions carried out to alleviate the suffering of individuals or groups who are victims sometimes become a tool to support war and violence. Through the four dimensions discussed, such as the protection of combatants, humanitarian aid cannot be completely separated from the economic structure formed by those responsible for the war.

The presence of humanitarian organisations in conflict areas can be considered as a political legitimisation of armed actors and government regimes involved in and responsible for the war. Humanitarian aid, which has become a tool of control and manipulation of civilians, has created a humanitarian paradox. Therefore, rational consideration is needed for the short and long term in every humanitarian action that will be carried out.