Amidst the chaos of conflict-driven zones, where hospitals are bombed, families flee, and entire communities are displaced, humanitarian organizations emerge as lifelines, tirelessly providing essential services to those caught in the crossfire. These organizations, often operating in harsh conditions, strive to bring assistance to those who need it most. Doctors without Borders, or Médecins Sans Frontières, is an example of such dedication—having operated for more than 50 years, providing humanitarian aid while maintaining neutrality, impartiality, and independence.
According to their mission, “In conflict zones, MSF does not take sides. We provide medical care based on needs alone and work to reach the people most in need of help.” Around one-third of the patients who receive medical aid from MSF are people caught in the midst of armed conflict (Issues in Focus | Doctors without Borders / Médecins sans Frontières (MSF …, 2023). For instance, during the 2017 Rohingya crisis, over 700,000 people were forced out of their homes after the mass violence outbreak (UNHCR, 2023). In which, MSF responded to the health needs of these refugees and aided to address the aftermath of the horrific violence against the Rohingya population in Myanmar.
This exemplifies Track 8 of the multi-track diplomacy, as it focuses on peace-making through the provision of resources. Humanitarian organizations like MSF not only raise donations and deploy medical professionals but also raise awareness of the crises that might otherwise be overlooked. The diplomatic nature of this act lies in connecting the gaps where governments may fail to act, fostering partnerships with state actors, NGOs, and communities to ensure the required support. Additionally, as most humanitarian organizations solidify themselves as a neutral body, they are able to facilitate the dialogue between conflicting parties.
Yet, despite their crucial role, humanitarian organizations still face significant challenges with the inability to achieve their objectives. For instance, as conflict zones are inherently dangerous, aid workers are heavily restricted. In 2022, the UN noted 3,931 occasions of denied humanitarian access imposed by government forces (Abbasi, 2024). Additionally, there is the issue of insufficient funds, where the estimated amount is not enough to support all those in need. While humanitarian organizations play a pivotal role in providing immediate relief in conflict zones, their effectiveness is often hindered by security constraints and limited resources. To overcome these challenges, governments must actively support these organizations, as without it, their efforts can only go so far.
Firstly, one of the difficulties that these humanitarian organizations face is the clear security constraints that are imposed by the state governments. For example, bureaucratic blockades would limit the operational capacity of these organizations and ultimately reduce their efficiency. When the government is needed to deploy assistance, they instead become the ones that are implementing these restrictions—this must change. For instance, the Rakhine state has introduced new policies that would heavily restrict humanitarian access for the affected population (ACAPS, 2024). When they are denied access, how would they effectively deliver the life-saving services to those in dire need? Such restrictions would not only exacerbate the suffering of vulnerable populations but also undermine the principles of humanitarianism. Another example is a situation in Sudan, where MSF’s response to urgent medical care was hindered by the local authorities. This included the weaponization of humanitarian aid and the blockage of their shipments (Abbasi, 2024). Thus, humanitarian diplomacy,, like diplomatic channels, must be utilized in order to tackle this issue and ensure accessibility in conflict zones (Harroff-Tavel, n.d.). This can be executed through negotiations with influential actors in order to determine humanitarian access. Though this is where governments’ role can be utilized, they must be able to ease the administrative process (Abbasi, 2024). If their priority is to sustain the population of their state, it is actions like this that they must commit to in order to do so.
In addition, humanitarian organizations may only possess a limited amount of resources—restricting their capacity to respond to crises. Though they often depend on private donors to maintain their independence, the scale of modern conflicts may exceed their financial and operational capabilities. The gap between funding needs and available resources leaves millions without access to basic services. The global humanitarian noted that the GHO set $55.5 billion was needed to assist 248 million of the 363 million people affected (Global Humanitarian Overview 2023, September Update (Snapshot as of 30 September 2023), 2023). This is where the government must contribute their part, as they evidently have the resources necessary to address the obstacles in conflict-ridden zones. The support of the government illustrates bilateral diplomacy as removing challenges that these humanitarian organizations may face; they are expressing their commitment to cooperation with NGOs.
On the other hand, some may argue that the reliance on governments risks compromising the neutrality of humanitarian organizations. However, it must be considered that the benefits of the collaboration between governments and humanitarian organizations will outweigh the potential drawbacks. Instead of focusing solely on short-term risks, these states and non-actors must adopt a forward-looking approach that emphasizes long-term solutions.
In 2024, it was estimated that nearly 300 million people worldwide would need humanitarian assistance and protection due to conflicts and other crises (Rossel & Soumaré, 2024). The staggering numbers shed light on the growing demand for coordinated action. Organizations like Doctors Without Borders have been at the forefront of addressing these matters. Yet, the long-term stability of these operations has to be addressed, in which partnerships with the government are key to preventing further challenges.
The world’s humanitarian organizations are doing their best in some of the most dangerous places on Earth. However, their efforts alone are not enough to address the scale of the present day’s crisis. Governments must step up to provide resources, ease bureaucratic restrictions, and ultimately support a sustainable recovery. Now is the time for states to recognize their role in supporting humanitarian efforts. The path of peace and recovery lies not in isolation but in collaboration.