The tragedies of the past decade have led to an identity crisis among humanitarians. Respecting traditional principles of neutrality and impartiality and operating procedures based on consent has created as many problems as it has solved. A debate is raging between "classicists," who believe that humanitarian action can be insulated from politics, and various "political humanitarians," who are attempting to use politics to improve relief and delivery in war zones.
This essay examines the pros and cons of impartial versus political humanitarianism and differing approaches across a spectrum of actors, including the classicists, led by the International Committee of the Red Cross, who believe that humanitarian action can and should be completely insulated from politics; the "minimalists," who "aim to do no harm" in delivering relief; the "maximalists," who have a more ambitious agenda of employing humanitarian action as part of a comprehensive strategy to transform conflict; and the "solidarists," exemplified by Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders), who choose sides and abandon neutrality and impartiality as well as reject consent as a prerequisite for intervention. The essay argues that there is no longer any need to ask whether politics and humanitarian action intersect. The real question is how this intersection can be managed to ensure more humanized politics and more effective humanitarian action.
To read or purchase the full text of this article, click here.