ANALYSIS: Aid workers are increasingly seen as fair game in violent conflicts

Last year was the deadliest on record worldwide for aid workers, with 280 killed – and 2024 is set to surpass it. And while many foreign humanitarian staff have died on duty, the vast majority (95 per cent in 2023) were national aid workers. Yet the deaths of foreign staff are the focal point of international condemnation and media coverage.

Nowhere is the targeting of aid workers more evident than in Gaza. Israel’s Parliament recently voted to ban the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) from operating in its territory. This effectively blocks humanitarian aid into Gaza and the issuance of work permits for foreign UNRWA staff.

UNRWA is the biggest humanitarian relief provider in Palestine, and some see its prohibition as an extension of Israel’s war on the UN and its peacekeeping operations. Since October 2023, more than 300 aid workers have died in Palestine while sheltering in their homes, tents, at work, or in aid convoys.

This is of grave concern, given that international humanitarian law obliges parties to an armed conflict to protect aid workers and allow them to carry out their work unimpeded.

In Africa, protection failures are driving a rise in targeted attacks against aid workers. For most of the past decade, Sudan and South Sudan were regarded as the most dangerous contexts for humanitarian aid workers. Before the current war in Gaza, more aid workers had been killed in the South Sudanese civil war than in any other conflict worldwide – over 150 from 2011-23.

Of these, 94 per cent were South Sudanese nationals, often targeted in ‘revenge killings’ and other inter-communal violence while transporting food and supplies outside the capital, Juba. Although the country’s 2018 peace agreement reduced some violence, local aid workers are still susceptible to attacks from armed groups and militias.

In eastern DRC, clashes between M23 rebels and the Congolese army are exacerbating an already volatile situation. In 2022, mounting frustration with foreign aid organisations and peacekeepers fuelled anti-UN protests that resulted in 15 deaths at a UN base in North Kivu. In 2024, renewed calls for the immediate expulsion of UN peacekeepers compound the insecurity for local staff.

The rise in conflict and attacks on aid workers has thwarted aid delivery. Organisations are suspending operations and removing their staff, leaving vulnerable populations without support.

In Burkina Faso, escalating violence has forced organisations like Médecins Sans Frontières to suspend operations in some areas, leaving over two million people without essential healthcare and vital services. Costly helicopter transport or military escorts are needed to deliver aid, leaving local workers without these resources at heightened risk.

In South Sudan, 34 aid workers died last year in targeted revenge attacks and ambushes in violent regions like Jonglei. In Sudan, 25 aid workers have been killed since April 2023 in the spiral of violence between the Sudanese Armed Forces and Rapid Support Forces.

These fatalities underline the limitations of enforcement in the existing legal architecture for aid workers’ protection. They also reveal systemic biases in aid operations that favour foreign aid workers over local staff.

While local staff are seen as an indispensable part of humanitarian aid operations, they do not enjoy the same level of protection as foreign staff. They bear the brunt of protection failures, have fewer security resources allocated to them, and are more easily allowed into remote areas.

This imbalance echoes a wider double standard in the duty of care afforded to aid workers in humanitarian contexts. In times of crisis, foreign staff and peacekeepers are prioritised over locals in the provision of security support, emergency evacuations and post-incident care. This is compounded by the tendency to outsource international aid worker protection to local groups without adequate funding to ensure their safety, as mandated for foreign workers.

What do these trends reveal about the humanitarian ecosystem, and how should aid organisations and other security actors adapt to protect aid workers in the delivery of lifesaving assistance?

Concerns around safety and access have prompted a shift to remote and other alternative methods of aid delivery. The indiscriminate nature of violence in Gaza, for example, has meant that aid providers have shifted to airdrops over ground delivery to avoid being caught in the crossfire.

The aid blockade in the Sudan war earlier this year necessitated the coordination of assistance from Chad. Aid organisations arranged ground deliveries across the border, allowing crucial supplies to reach areas that were otherwise cut off by the conflict.

The perceived neutrality of aid workers and peacekeepers in war no longer guarantees their safety. Whereas the UN and other aid organisations’ role in providing relief was once respected by parties to a conflict, they are now seen as legitimate targets or extensions of foreign and occupying powers.

This shift, marked by high-profile attacks like the 2003 UN bombing in Baghdad, reflects an erosion of trust as aid has become entangled in political and military agendas.

Aid organisations must adapt to the changing dynamics of modern conflict. Existing legal instruments have not curbed attacks on their workers, and there is inadequate enforcement of their legal protections.

READ ALSO: US govt offers $25,000 bounty for wanted Nigerian man over child’s murder

Global actors must reevaluate how security resources are allocated to ensure the comprehensive protection of all aid workers, local and foreign. And concrete steps are needed to reverse the perception that humanitarian workers are legitimate targets or extensions of warring factions.

Xhanti Mhlambiso, Researcher, Rule of Law and Adivhaho Ramaite, Research Officer, Executive Director’s Office, Institute for Security Studies (ISS) Pretoria

(This article was first published by ISS Today, a Premium Times syndication partner. We have their permission to republish).