Most humanitarians view neutrality, impartiality and independence as the bedrock of what they do. But might it be more accurate to describe these values as the holy grail?

In recent years - especially since the United States launched its "war on terror" - there's been a growing feeling among some aid workers that humanitarian aid is being hijacked for political ends.

Back in 2001, after the invasion of Afghanistan, former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell set the cat among the pigeons when he stood in front of a conference of non-governmental organisations and described them as "a force multiplier" and "an important part of our combat team".

Aid agencies recoiled in horror at such aggressive language. But like it or not, that's how they are seen by some groups in conflict zones like Iraq and Afghanistan.

At a recent debate on humanitarian aid and independence in London, Geoffrey Dennis, executive director of CARE International UK, said it was vital for agencies to understand how they are perceived - even if those perceptions are at odds with reality.

CARE, of course, learned this lesson through bitter experience. Following the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, it turned down funding from the U.S. government for humanitarian work in Iraq. Nonetheless, its country director Margaret Hassan was kidnapped and killed by insurgents the following year.

"Where there is strategic donor interest, we get squeezed. It is easier for us to do what we want in forgotten crises," Dennis observed.

PULLING OUT

Despite the relatively large amounts of money available for aid in high-profile crises like Iraq, political pressure sometimes means the best choice for humanitarian organisations is to stay away.

In 2004, five employees of medical aid agency Medicins Sans Frontieres were shot and killed in northern Afghanistan. MSF - a strong proponent of the need for humanitarian independence - took the tough decision to quit the country after 24 years, citing one of the reasons as "false allegations" by the Taliban (which had claimed responsibility for the ambush) that organisations like MSF worked for U.S.interests and were thus targets for future attacks.

In the press release announcing its withdrawal, it added: "The violence directed at humanitarian aid workers in Afghanistan comes amid consistent efforts by the U.S.-led coalition to use humanitarian aid to build support for its military and political aims." MSF had publicly voiced its opposition to this strategy.

Withdrawing from a country may be the last resort for an agency that feels it can no longer carry out its humanitarian mission. But it's not the only way for relief groups to defend their independence.

Organisations - large ones in particular - can refuse to take money that comes with political strings attached. And they can diversify their funding sources so they don't just rely on government cash.

MSF derives half its income from donations from private individuals, according to James Kliffen, head of fundraising for the charity in Britain. This is an essential factor in allowing it to adhere to the humanitarian principles of neutrality and impartiality, he told the debate at the London School of Economics (LSE).

"Money can have profound effects on the ability of aid agencies to help people who need it, but money in and of itself doesn't help anybody," he argued.

JUST SAY NO

Kliffen recounted his experience of being at a meeting during the high point of the Darfur crisis in 2004 at which two relief group representatives told Britain's Department for International Development they couldn't put in a proposal for funding for aid activities because they didn't have the money to carry out a needs assessment on the ground. The British government had apparently not made funds available for this purpose.

CARE's Dennis said the tendering system favoured by government donors makes life harder for aid agencies. In general, they prefer longer-term, more flexible funding arrangements such as DFID's Partnership Programme Agreements (PPAs). These set out at a strategic level how the government and civil society partners will work together to meet the Millennium Development Goals over a period of three to five years.

The relationship between governments and aid agencies is complex, particularly for those charities that carry out both emergency relief and development activities. In some cases - say Iraq - an agency may refuse to take money from what they see as a "belligerent" government. At the same time, it may be going cap in hand to the same donor for longer-term development work in east Africa.

"In the development world, your work needs to be based on community capacity-building, and that's often done with the authorities. In Sri Lanka, for example, the International Committee of the Red Cross has to be seen to be working with both sides in the conflict, but the International Federation of the Red Cross is trying to build disaster preparedness, working with the government," explained Dennis. "In the longer-term you will be working with a government - at least at the regional level."

DOING HARM?

Edward Simpson, an anthropology lecturer at London's School of Oriental and African Studies, believes that steering clear of governments in a non-conflict situation can have a harmful impact for aid agencies and those they're trying to help.

While researching the response to the 2001 Gujarat earthquake, he found that efforts by international relief groups to work independently of the authorities in charge of the aid operation backfired. "They worked on the margins with marginalised people, and ended up separating those people even more from mainstream society. They were putting the will of the government into practice unwittingly."

Simpson believes that, rather than disengaging from governments in a bid to stay independent, it's more effective to influence the agenda by working with them.

"The key question when it comes to independence is: independent from what? Can anyone really claim to be independent in countries where they intervene?" he asked. "Can you straddle all [social] divisions in your operations, or is there always a compromise?"

As MSF's Kliffen admitted, aid agencies tend to trumpet the importance they attach to humanitarian principles in their marketing materials, but on the ground it's less clear-cut. "Aid organisations talk this language very well," he said. "They have become almost too eloquent, while in their actions they are not always true to those values."

You can listen to a podcast of the debate on the LSE website.

Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.