'Bombs and Bread' campaigns and other reasons humanitarian aid workers are at greater risk

Second, the delivery of aid itself could be seen as a weapon of war.  Whereas the role of aid groups is to provide neutral, non-partisan assistance in catastrophic humanitarian emergencies, the motive of the US government in providing aid is seen to be stabilising the position of pro-Western groups in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

“If the military is involved in delivering humanitarian assistance, the aid can be regarded by opponents as an act of war,” wrote Dr Morten Rostrup, president of MSF’s International Council in 2001. “If humanitarian action is seen as partisan, aid and aid workers can be denied access to people in need.”

It is easy to argue that terrorists are indiscriminate in their targeting of Westerners, be they aid workers or not. But over the past two weeks aid workers have been specifically identified as targets by Al Qa’ida leaders in Afghanistan. The Bush Administration’s attempts to offer aid as a counterpoint to war have not been successful. It has added to the increasingly difficult task of supplying aid in the 21st century. By violating the neutrality that Western aid groups desperately need, it has put at risk those who work for them.

Humanitarians, whatever their background, take their reward from the individual interaction with people in need. The complex political forces that have shaped humanitarianism over the past 20 years will not stop the hundreds of Australians who leave very comfortable lives to work in some very uncomfortable places. It just happens that the US attempts to make war more palatable to the global community have added another dangerous ingredient to the delivery of aid work, and aid workers have suffered the consequences.