Summary
In recent years, the nature of the most significant and prolonged humanitarian crises has changed from natural disasters to man-made armed conflicts. These conflicts are now the main drivers of displacement, poverty and gender-based violence. The UN recently estimated that 139 million people worldwide were in acute humanitarian need; most of them because of armed conflict.
These conflicts are often characterised by violations of international humanitarian law—in other words the ‘rules of war’. Such violations include indirect as well as direct attacks against aid and healthcare providers (together, ‘humanitarian workers’) and their facilities. In 2018, there were 221 separate incidents of violence recorded against aid workers resulting in 126 deaths and 143 injuries. In the same year, there were 973 recorded attacks on healthcare personnel and facilities, in 23 countries, resulting in 167 fatalities and at least 710 injured. Definitional and methodological issues make it difficult to determine a definitive picture of either past harm, current trends or future risks. However, our evidence indicates pervasive perceptions that the dangers are increasing; and the number of incidents is edging upwards.
We salute the efforts of humanitarian workers to provide essential support, and longer-term development in all circumstances. The occurrence, threat and perception of violence inevitably harms these efforts in a number of ways. Firstly, there is the obvious and immediate injury and loss of life amongst a community of volunteers and professionals whose chief objective is alleviating the suffering and vulnerability of others.
Secondly, attacks on providers of aid and health care hamper, interrupt or simply stop those most in need receiving vital assistance and health services. In some circumstances, for example currently in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), such violence is jeopardizing global efforts to contain and stop the spread of Ebola; elsewhere the eradication of dangerous diseases such as Polio is threatened.
Thirdly, measures to mitigate these risks and threats, and ensure the safety and security of humanitarian and health workers and facilities, also inevitably impose costs, diverting resources that otherwise could be applied to the provision of essential services and assistance. Smaller aid organisations, with fewer resources and less capacity to cover these costs, are having to make difficult choices between safeguarding staff, facilities and equipment and providing humanitarian assistance. In addition, the appearance of substantial physical security measures can act to inflame negative narratives amongst local communities, creating a vicious circle of distrust and increased threat.
In the long run, if unchecked, these trends inevitably can only pose the gravest threats to humanitarian relief—as a feasible activity and viable occupation.
International humanitarian law provides a strong legal framework to safeguard humanitarian activity in conflict. However, the rules of war seem to be increasingly ignored by state, as well as non-state, aggressors. And when transgressions occur, it is rare for accountability to be pursued and justice achieved. This appears to be equally the case whether the alleged perpetrators are part of official state forces or not.
We welcome evidence of the Department for International Development’s (DFID’s)efforts in terms of risk assessment, due diligence and the exercise of its duty of care, towards staff and partners at a programme level. We also welcome indications of the UK’s advocacy at a global level in support of the observance of international humanitarian law and pursuit of accountability.
We believe that DFID’s international standing as a provider of humanitarian relief, and its commitment to substantial expenditure of Official Development Assistance in fragile states, confers upon the UK both the opportunity and the responsibility to redouble its advocacy efforts and seek to establish a global leadership role in resurrecting respect for the rules of war; in particular, the previous acceptance of amnesty for non-combatants providing humanitarian relief and health care in the midst of violence and carnage. This must include pressing the international community to hold to account those responsible for breaches of international humanitarian law, irrespective of whether they are state or non-state actors.
Published: 6 August 2019