Playing with principles in an era of securitized aid

Abstract

The international community's response to reconstructing Afghanistan, following the US-led regime change invasion post-11 September 2001 (9/11), brought actors such as the military and private corporations more fully into the humanitarian sphere. As a result, the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), traditionally charged with taking humanitarian action, face a number of challenges and dilemmas. Their legitimacy and their ability to act impartially, be perceived as neutral and to maintain their independence have become increasingly constrained. How the NGOs adapt when their humanitarian space is constrained affects who, where and what aid gets delivered and on what principles. However, little is known about the dynamics of humanitarian space or how the NGOs have adapted in practice. Filling the gap in empirical knowledge might enable the NGOs to deal better with the constrained environments they are likely to encounter as the ‘war on terror’ continues to unfold. This research, based on field work in Afghanistan during mid-2006, suggests the politicization, developmentalization and securitization of aid, often referred to as ‘new humanitarianism’, has triumphed in the post-9/11 environment. The role of the NGOs as neutral actors has been seriously undermined, not least by the NGOs themselves. Having legitimized regime change intervention, they find themselves prevented from negotiating their space with any group not approved by the architects of the new political dispensation. As the country slips towards a serious humanitarian crisis, there may be no way back from their lost neutrality. The best use that can be made of these findings is to identify what the Afghanistan experience can teach NGOs for operating under constrained humanitarianism.