I’ve been reflecting on the humanitarian sector and its operational modalities lately, observing the intricate web of challenges that INGOs (International Non-Governmental Organizations) face in their quest to deliver aid. The more I reflect on my personal experiences across the Middle East, Asia, and Africa — both at the national country level and in global HQ roles — the more I see the humanitarian operational system reaching its limitations. As I read, listen, and engage with peers across the field — not just within NGOs, but also among UN agencies and the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement — one unsettling truth keeps surfacing in countless conversations: the politicization of humanitarian aid.
It feels like a silent yet pervasive force, creeping into every corner of our work, shaping decisions, and, in many cases, undermining the very principles we stand for — neutrality, impartiality, and independence. I can’t help but notice how often this issue arises in conversations, particularly when it comes to advocacy, policy development, and program design.
What strikes me even more is seeing the frustration among others in the sector — colleagues, partners, and even communities — over how INGOs often remain silent during major crises. This silence, intentional or otherwise, compounds the perception of bias and disconnects us from the very populations we aim to serve. It leaves many questioning our ability — or willingness — to truly stand for humanitarian principles.
When you dig deeper, it’s clear this isn’t just about political interference; it’s about how deeply humanitarian aid has become entangled with geopolitical agendas. And it’s not just the “big players” at fault — this is a systemic problem that challenges us all. It adds ethical pressure to the way we design programs, operations, and strategies, forcing us to reconcile principles with a reality that often feels at odds with them.
What I’m Seeing: Aid as a Political Tool
The more I observe, the clearer it becomes: humanitarian aid is increasingly entangled in dynamics that go beyond saving lives or alleviating suffering. Instead, it often intersects with political and strategic considerations that complicate its delivery and compromise its neutrality. Donor governments, for instance, may tie funding to specific priorities or political agendas. Similarly, host governments can impose conditions, restrict access, or redirect resources in ways that align with their own interests. In conflict zones, even armed groups have been known to influence how and where aid is distributed.
A further challenge is the perception of bias. Despite the rigorous efforts of INGOs to uphold neutrality, operating in politically sensitive contexts inevitably leads to scrutiny and accusations of partiality — sometimes from all sides. This perception is corrosive, undermining trust among stakeholders and making it harder for humanitarian organizations to carry out their core mission: delivering life-saving aid to those who need it most.
The Fragility of Neutrality
Neutrality. It’s a word we throw around a lot in the humanitarian world. But when I think about it, I realize how delicate it is — like a glass shield protecting us as we navigate complex crises. The problem is, this shield can crack under pressure. A single misstep, or even just the appearance of one, can shatter the trust we rely on to access communities and deliver aid.
In my years working across different countries, I’ve seen firsthand how the perception of bias can affect humanitarian efforts. Whether in conflict zones or politically sensitive areas, accusations of favoring one side are alarmingly common. Sometimes it’s governments claiming bias; other times, it’s armed groups or even the communities we aim to serve. Even when these claims are unfounded, the damage is significant.
Neutrality isn’t just a principle — it’s the foundation of humanitarian work. Without it, gaining access becomes an uphill battle, and trust, once lost, is incredibly hard to rebuild. I’ve read and reflected on many examples recently, and it’s heartbreaking to see how quickly the perception of bias can undermine everything humanitarian organizations stand for. Without trust, how do we reach people in the most vulnerable and hardest-to-reach places? How can we help those most in need when neutrality itself is under question?
The reality is, balancing the principle of neutrality with the need to act and bear witness is incredibly challenging. Simply being present in a particular area can sometimes be seen as taking sides. On other occasions, logistical realities — like donor restrictions or access issues — can unintentionally give the impression of favoritism. These situations are complicated and not always within our control, but their consequences ripple through every aspect of humanitarian work.
It’s not always about overt accusations of bias. Sometimes, it’s more subtle — a misunderstanding, a political narrative about aid distribution, or the unavoidable complexities of working in divided environments. Striking the right balance between staying neutral and addressing the urgent needs on the ground is one of the hardest challenges humanitarian organizations face today. Navigating this fine line requires transparency, careful decision-making, and a deep commitment to the principles of impartiality and integrity.
The Barriers Keep Growing
It’s not just about trust, though. I’m seeing more and more barriers — bureaucratic red tape, access restrictions, logistical hurdles. Governments impose regulations that delay critical aid, while others outright block assistance to opposition-held areas. It’s maddening to think about the lives lost because of these delays. Every hour matters in a crisis, yet politicization makes everything slower, harder, and more frustrating.
What’s really troubling is how this affects the credibility of INGOs. Politicization has created a trust deficit — not just with the people we serve but with donors, too. This erosion of credibility doesn’t just hurt individual organizations; it damages the entire humanitarian sector. When trust is gone, everything becomes more difficult — raising funds, gaining access, delivering impact. It’s a cycle that feels almost impossible to break.
Why This Happens: The Root Causes
So why does this keep happening? As I reflect, it’s clear the problem is deeply systemic. Donor governments often prioritize their foreign policy goals over humanitarian needs, shaping aid distribution to align with their strategic interests rather than focusing solely on those most in need. Funding frequently comes with strings attached, forcing INGOs into uncomfortable compromises that challenge their principles of neutrality and impartiality.
Then there’s the dominance of global North-based INGOs, which perpetuates power imbalances and fosters distrust. These organizations often hold disproportionate decision-making power, sidelining local actors who have a deeper understanding of their communities’ needs. This imbalance not only undermines localization efforts — a key pillar of effective and sustainable humanitarian work — but also reinforces the perception that INGOs are extensions of foreign influence, rather than genuine partners.
The sidelining of local organizations isn’t just an oversight; it’s a missed opportunity. By not empowering local actors to take the lead, INGOs inadvertently create a gap in trust, making it appear as though aid is controlled externally rather than driven by community priorities. When combined with donor conditions and geopolitical agendas, it’s no wonder skepticism towards the humanitarian system continues to grow.
What We Can Do: My Thoughts
I’ve been thinking a lot about solutions, and while there’s no quick fix, there are steps we can take to address this challange. Here’s what comes to mind:
1. Advocating for Neutrality
We need to be louder and clearer about the importance of neutrality. This isn’t just a talking point; it’s the foundation of everything we do. By standing together and advocating for depoliticized aid at forums like the United Nations, we can push back against donor-driven agendas.
2. Diversifying Funding
I can’t overstate the importance of reducing reliance on politically motivated donors. Imagine what we could achieve with more private sector partnerships or grassroots funding. It’s not easy, but it’s essential if we want true independence.
3. Empowering Local Partners
Localization isn’t just a buzzword — it’s a necessity. Partnering with local organizations not only builds trust but also shifts the narrative. It shows that humanitarian aid isn’t about control; it’s about collaboration.
4. Transparency as a Core Value
Trust comes from transparency. We need to be crystal clear about how and why decisions are made. People deserve to know where aid is going and why. It’s one of the best ways to rebuild credibility.
A Call to Action
As I sit with these thoughts, I realize this isn’t just a logistical problem — it’s a moral one. The politicization of humanitarian aid strikes at the heart of what it means to be a humanitarian. It challenges our principles, tests our resilience, and forces us to confront uncomfortable truths.
But I also see hope. I see many INGOs that refuse to compromise their values, that innovate, that adapt. I see local organizations rising to the challenge, demanding their rightful place at the table. And I see people — colleagues, friends, allies — who are determined to make things better.
If we can stand firm in our principles, diversify our approaches, and advocate for systemic change, I truly believe we can navigate this complex terrain. Neutrality, independence, and impartiality aren’t just ideals — they’re lifelines. And they’re worth fighting for.
Ali Al Mokdad
