Critical view
Why is humanitarian aid to be criticized?
In the context of Europe’s (external) borders, humanitarian aid often fills politically desired gaps in state responsibility. Some projects show how solidarity-based support can work outside paternalistic structures. However, humanitarian aid provided by civil society cannot be a long-term solution.
Even if it can alleviate suffering in the short term, it needs to be viewed critically for several reasons:
Click on the Play-Icon to expand the section.
▶Humanitarian aid cannot be neutral.
The situation at Europe’s (external) borders is not a natural disaster — it is politically produced by the EU and its member states. Calling humanitarian aid “neutral” depoliticizes a highly political context. Instead of recognising that inadequate accommodation and care result from political decisions, they are framed as “humanitarian crises” that require neutral assistance. This narrative hides the structural violence that creates the need for support in the first place.
▶Humanitarian aid is not impartial.
Aid structures operate within political systems. They can challenge existing structures — or stabilise them. In practice, humanitarian aid often reinforces state distinctions between who is “wanted” and “unwanted.” Helpers unintentionally decide who “deserves” support and who does not. This contributes to discrimination and dependency and can perpetuate the illegalisation of people on the move.
▶Existing power structures are reinforced.
Humanitarian aid is embedded in power relations. It constructs active helpers and passive recipients. This paternalistic setup reduces people on the move to victims, strips them of agency, and undermines their political subjectivity — despite the fact that they have a legal right to protection and support. Instead of dismantling hierarchies, humanitarian aid often reproduces them.
▶Humanitarian aid stabilises the existing system.
Humanitarian organisations often take over responsibilities that the state deliberately avoids. This allows governments to continue neglecting their obligations without facing consequences, because civil society actors “fill the gaps.” Instead of driving structural change, aid can unintentionally help maintain the very conditions it seeks to address.
💭
Questions to reflect on
Here are some questions to carry with you as you reflect:
- Which images of “helping” have shaped my understanding of aid?
- How do we reproduce colonial, paternalistic or victim narratives without noticing (Language, images)?
- Does this form of support (humanitarian aid ) empower people — or make them dependent? How does it differ from charity?
