.webp)
Article shared by Niloufar Pourzand
Click here for the article
The author
Tammam Aloudat is a Syrian Swiss physician and humanitarian worker. He is currently the president of MSF Netherlands and a member of MSF International Board.
Summary
Aloudat reflects on the moral decline and increasing politicization of humanitarianism. He argues that humanitarian institutions have shifted from advocating for crisis-affected people to prioritizing donor interests and geopolitical agendas. The multilateral system supporting humanitarian work is collapsing, exposing Western hypocrisy and selective engagement in crises like Syria, Gaza, and Sudan.
Rather than minor reforms, the author calls for a radical remaking of humanitarianism—one that challenges systemic power imbalances, rejects paternalism, and aligns with broader struggles against colonialism, capitalism, and structural violence. They emphasize that simply restoring funding, as after the Trump-era aid freeze, won’t fix the deeper failures of the system. Instead, humanitarianism must become a solidarity-driven, activist movement rather than a bureaucratic, donor-dependent enterprise.
Quotes
“Humanitarianism’s struggles didn’t begin when President Trump issued an executive order freezing foreign aid.”
"I have witnessed the courage and agency of both the people affected by crises and the humanitarian workers serving them on the front lines. But I have also witnessed – time after time – the erosion of the moral argument of Western liberalism for its humanitarian purpose."
"Humanitarian choices aren’t being guided by the needs of people affected by crises but by what will resonate better with donors and Western audiences – by what will be covered more by the media and bring in more funding."
Aloudat reflects on the moral decline and increasing politicization of humanitarianism. He argues that humanitarian institutions have shifted from advocating for crisis-affected people to prioritizing donor interests and geopolitical agendas. The multilateral system supporting humanitarian work is collapsing, exposing Western hypocrisy and selective engagement in crises like Syria, Gaza, and Sudan.
Rather than minor reforms, the author calls for a radical remaking of humanitarianism—one that challenges systemic power imbalances, rejects paternalism, and aligns with broader struggles against colonialism, capitalism, and structural violence. They emphasize that simply restoring funding, as after the Trump-era aid freeze, won’t fix the deeper failures of the system. Instead, humanitarianism must become a solidarity-driven, activist movement rather than a bureaucratic, donor-dependent enterprise.
Quotes
“Humanitarianism’s struggles didn’t begin when President Trump issued an executive order freezing foreign aid.”
"I have witnessed the courage and agency of both the people affected by crises and the humanitarian workers serving them on the front lines. But I have also witnessed – time after time – the erosion of the moral argument of Western liberalism for its humanitarian purpose."
"Humanitarian choices aren’t being guided by the needs of people affected by crises but by what will resonate better with donors and Western audiences – by what will be covered more by the media and bring in more funding."
I agree with a lot of what is being said – including his statement that humanitarians have morphed from “rebels to bookkeepers”. I recommend the article to all of us. I agree also with him that we need to start to “shift the conversation.” Sadly, there aren’t many people who want to engage in this (or any) conversation.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the author, the existing model of humanitarism is inequitable and Eurocentric. He concludes that Europeans need to rethink their model, which is fair enough. I would add that – as important as anything else - we need more governments and leaders of non-European countries to live up to their own accountability, first and foremost to their own people, for securing peace.
It is easy and intellectually lazy to blame the West for all the world's ills, from slavery, colonisation and capitalist exploitation to geopolitical manipulation. Yes, the West has, with its economic and military dominance, been responsible for a lot of wars and atrocities over the last several hundred years. The West has also, over the same period, been a provider of a lot of good in science, medicine, engineering, technology, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of the world is fully capable of wars and abuse without the involvement of the West. The Arabs were involved in slavery long after it was abolished in the West. Some African countries made slavery illegal just recently. Most countries have been occupied or colonised; it is not a uniquely Western phenomenon against the rest of the world. My own country, Sweden, has been colonised several times. Spain, where I now live, was occupied by the Arabs for hundreds of years. The left's denouncing of capitalism as evil is ignorant. There has never been any sustainable economic development of any significance anywhere without capitalism. Even communist China had to resort to capitalism to get their economy to grow. Nor is geopolitical manipulation restricted to Western powers. What are Russia, UAE, China, etc., doing in Africa as I write this?
Africa's problems are not caused by a lack of aid from the West. It has received trillions of dollars in aid over the past 60 years. Most of it was wasted, Africa is relatively poorer today than it was 60 years ago. The continent's problems are primarily caused by incompetent, corrupt and abusive governments.
This description of the history is ignorant and has racist undertones.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete