Understanding the divide between
military and humanitarian action
One essential requirements of providing humanitarian aid in a conflict situation is to keep military action and humanitarian aid separate. From both an immediate and long-term perspective, the mixing of roles has a negative impact on both the people in need and those trying to provide assistance.
Following the September 11, 2001 attack against the World Trade Center Towers in New York, USA , an international counter-offensive against the Taleban forces in Afghanistan was organised. The campaign included the military delivery of food and aid to Afghan populations - primarily by using air drops.
The combination of military and humanitarian action was immediately criticised by MSF. The food drops were misleading in intent, and ineffective in reaching the very population the drops were intended to benefit.
MSF published a collection of articles better defining the need for humanitarian action to be left to neutral parties, not only for the immediate effectiveness of aid delivery but also for the long-term capabilities of neutral humanitarian actors to be able to reah endangered populations.
A collection of articles and MSF press releases on the topic are shown below.
Articles appearing in the current editions of the UK medical journals The Lancet and the British Journal of General Practice reiterate the MSF position regarding the difficulties for humanitarian action in Afghanistan and the need for clear division of humanitarian aid and military action.
Nov 7, 2001British Journal of General Practice: Afghanistan - humanitarian aid and military intervention don't mix
The threats of war ... has greatly increased the security risk for expatriate workers and forced the majority of aid agencies to withdraw. The airstrikes ... chronic lack of aid, and the onset of winter will only magnify the humanitarian catastrophe.
Nov 6, 2001 - The Lancet: Chaos in Afghanistan: famine, aid, and bombs
Before Sept 11, everything pointed to a worsening humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. The food drops that accompanied the US air strikes on Afghanistan will have done little to help alleviate the food crisis. More seriously, this act has damaged the effectiveness of humanitarian aid.
Oct 18, 2001, International Herald Tribune Humanitarian' and 'Military' don't go together
Decisions on humanitarian intervention should be based on needs alone, independent of military or political objectives. By Morten Rostrup, President of the MSF International Council
Oct 11, 2001 - The Christian Science Monitor Q&A: Afghanistan's humanitarian crisis
Interview with Austen Davis, General Director of MSF-Holland
MSF recently released a statement rejecting humanitarian airdrops by US military forces. Can you explain why you do not support this effort?
Since the US military is one of the only organizations in a position to get food aid to Afghanistan, isn't it preferable to offer some food to the people even from the hands of the military? Isn't your position sacrificing hungry people in the short-term, for a long-term philosophy?
Oct 12, 2001 Bombs and bread
America is trying to deliver aid to starving Afghans even as it bombs their country. This "bombs and bread" campaign is proving more difficult, and controversial, than expected.
