World Humanitarian Day

19 August is World Humanitarian Day; an annual day designated by the United Nations to remember people who have lost their lives working for humanitarian causes. This year marks the 10th anniversary of the event that inspired this Day; the 2003 bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad in which 22 people were killed. My thoughts, though, will focus on the two colleagues of mine who were killed, about six weeks ago, after a misdirected grenade was lobbed into their compound.

Ironically, but tragically, the number of attacks on aid workers has risen dramatically since 2003, when a total of 63 major incidents were recorded (the first time the number had gone above 50). In 2012, there were 167 major incidents, including 92 people kidnapped and 65 killed.

Analysts divide these attacks into three categories of motive. The first is incidental, where aid workers, such as my colleagues, are the non-targeted victims of their dangerous working environments. The second is economic, where aid workers – typically the wealthiest people in the neighbourhood – are targeted for their wealth (via armed robberies, carjackings and kidnap for ransom). The third category is political, where aid organisations are deliberately targeted. Prior to the late 1990s, incidents belonging to the second and third categories were extremely rare. Today, they dominate the statistics.

This change can be explained in a number of ways. The changing nature of violent conflict is a prominent one. Prior to recent decades, wars tended to be fought between two organised parties over defined territory. For aid workers, it was possible to negotiate access with both sides and operate as a neutral party somewhere in the middle. The incidental risks were still there, but humanitarian work was respected by combatants on both sides. Today’s conflicts are significantly more complex and fractured. It is difficult to tell who the different sides are or where the “middle” is. The use of terrorism as a tactic of warfare also plays a role, increasing the likelihood that aid organizations will be targeted.

The blurring of the lines between humanitarian and military action is another negative influence; with Western powers having conjured up the bizarre strategy of simultaneously engaging in military aggression and the provision of humanitarian and development funding. This strategy was most prominently seen in Afghanistan; one of the deadliest countries in the world for aid workers. The high profile promotion of such strategies and the provision of significant funds for aid and development agencies makes it far more difficult for the Oxfams and Save the Childrens to proclaim political neutrality. Rather, to some at least, they are viewed as the enemy.

In Muslim countries (where the vast majority of aid worker deaths occur), even in situations where there is zero alignment between military and humanitarian operations, it remains very hard for aid agencies to shake their Western image. Despite the fact that the majority of aid workers these days originate from the developing world, the perception remains that aid agencies (including the United Nations) are Western institutions spreading a Western ideology.

Whilst external factors are largely behind the rise in aid worker deaths, aid agencies must also shoulder part of the blame. Go to a seminar about humanitarian security management and you quickly be introduced to the “acceptance” approach to risk reduction, whereby aid workers are told to build such build such close relationships with local communities that they will be protected, rather than harmed by them. There is lots of evidence to support the effectiveness of this approach, but instead of embracing it, aid agencies have – unintentionally – tended to move further away from it.

Over the last twenty years or so, there has been a significant “professionalization” of the humanitarian sector. The image of a Western aid worker taking a year or two out from their career or study to distribute food in famine camps or administer life-saving medical procedures to victims of conflict is largely a thing of the (perhaps glorified) past. Instead of volunteers, aid workers are now likely to receive healthy salaries. Instead of offering hard-work and practical skills, they have post-graduate degrees in subjects like “disaster management” of “post-conflict recovery”. And the organizations they work for sometimes resemble multi-national corporations more than charities.

Much of this change is positive. Wide-eyed do-goodery, no matter how well intentioned, can do a lot of harm, and both governments and private donors rightly demand that their money is being spent in the best possible way. And voluntarism is highly commendable (and I remain proud of my year spent as a volunteer aid worker), but the reality is that the industry needs to retain experienced workers and you can’t be a volunteer forever.

But, there is also a down-side. As people have become more professional, there has been a motivational shift. I am not saying that all aid workers are purely in it for the pay-check (there are, for sure, easier ways to earn money). But, professionalism has fundamentally affected relationships between aid workers and the recipients of aid. To say to someone “I am here to help you” is quite a different thing from saying “I am being paid to help you.” This has, not only reduced the potential effectiveness of humanitarian work, but also increased its risks.

The marketing people at the UN like to hype up World Humanitarian Day as a day to remember humanitarian heroes. To a large extent, though, they are celebrating a model of aid worker that retains considerable public appeal, but which no longer exists. The organizers of World Humanitarian Day would be better to cross-check the values they are celebrating with modern-day realities. This may be a more meaningful way to remember those who have died for the cause and to prevent unnecessary casualties in the future.