Humanitarian Commandos - The Problem with Politicising Aid

The international humanitarian sector faces a host of challenges in improving its capacity to respond to complex emergencies across the globe. In the context of increasing violence being perpetrated against aid workers globally (174 aid workers were killed in 2017 alone, a 30% increase from the year before), international NGOs and humanitarian organisations are facing difficult decisions regarding how best to remain effective in supporting civilians affected by conflict, and also safeguarding their own personnel.

When a situation becomes too unsafe for humanitarian work to continue, the consequences can be disastrous. For example, when MSF was forced to suspend operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 450,000 people were affected. Therefore, humanitarian organisations and development actors are searching for new ways of working that can allow for continued aid support in dangerous areas, and that also provide a modicum of protection for the aid workers themselves.

According to a recent report from USAID’s Global Development Hub, the answer may be to train aid workers as commandos. The proposal of the development of so-called Rapid Expeditionary Development (RED) teams within USAID would allow humanitarian work to continue in areas where other civilian American personnel are unable to reach, according to the report’s authors. The suggestion is that “RED Team members would be specifically recruited and trained ... to secure communities vulnerable to violent extremist radicalization and exploitation” and that these individuals would then be able to act independently of partner organisations in delivering support in austere environments.

This sort of “elite humanitarian” capability may well increase the capacity of USAID to respond in hard-to-reach areas and allow for a more hands-on approach to complex emergencies as they unravel, but it also risks further blurring the line between humanitarian action and military activities.

Traditional humanitarian approaches to security are characterised by ‘acceptance’, or the idea that aid and development workers will be kept safe by the fact that they are not perceived as a threat (as enshrined as a fundamental principle of humanitarian action by the Red Cross movement). In contrast, the use of military-style tactics and techniques help to contribute to a “culture of war” that can lead to the perception of foreign actors as combatants rather than benign actors.

The growing number of attacks on humanitarian actors since 2003 has been attributed to the increasing link between INGO activity and the agendas of western governments. USAID, as an American organisation, can be expected to work in support of wider US strategic goals, but humanitarian actors more generally must be seen to remain neutral in the conflict situations in which they respond. A 2017 article published in International Peacekeeping found that “there is a growing consensus that the politicization of aid and its embeddedness within military operations may be contributing to greater humanitarian insecurity…”. This extends to the humanitarian sector in its broadest sense. If one organisation is seen to be acting in a way not befitting of the humanitarian agenda then the entire sector is held responsible - and suffers the consequences.

The USAID proposal argues that RED Team members could be used to help win the “hearts and minds” of local communities, but this very terminology was borne from the counterinsurgency movement in the US military (as the report itself references). Humanitarian action should not be about “winning hearts and minds”. It should be about saving lives. Governmental agencies like USAID or DFID will of course work to uphold national interests, but the co-option of humanitarian activity to meet political ends puts the whole sector in the firing line.

The legitimacy of the humanitarian sphere as a neutral, impartial, and independent force for good is the best defence an aid worker can have.

“Humanitarian commando” is an oxymoron. Aid worker deaths and kidnappings will continue to rise if the lines between humanitarian and combatant remain blurred.