Global Humanitarian Governance and the COVID-19 Moment: The Evolution of Sacrifice

This article was contributed to Forum—the edition’s portfolio of thematic content—by GJIA’s Global Governance section.

In the rush to help victims, develop vaccines, and otherwise confront COVID-19, analytical attention has rightly focused on the direct operational problems of resources, scale, and coordination. The bulk of analysis has concentrated on state-led responses within their own jurisdictions, which is where the preponderance of efforts has taken place. However, discussion around the very nature of responses and their significance is missing-in-action in the context of humanitarian emergencies—especially in war zones, large-scale disasters stemming from natural hazards, or “protracted crises” (that is, where perennially vulnerable populations suffer because of limited state capacities and development infrastructure). This essay sheds light on how providing relief in the context of COVID-19 affects the authority and capacity of global humanitarian governance—the web of inter-governmental and international nongovernmental agencies dedicated to this work. Our concern is the hierarchies, inequalities, and institutions that determine who lives and who dies, which indicate shifting relationships between aid workers and the needy; they reveal larger questions of justice and power. Humanitarianism is a touchstone for sacrifice in international politics: it reflects the power to aid and save some while abandoning others to suffer and die.

Public service is more than a theoretical exercise; the values underpinning humanitarian action have practical repercussions. If they are tainted, the sector’s legitimacy is undermined. This essay explores humanitarianism’s past, present, and future. It does so not only to explain how customary challenges are compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic, but also to spotlight how responses exhibit inherent limits, shifts in power relations, questions about the role of aid agencies, and ultimately soul-searching about the meaning of humanitarianism and its ramifications for sacrifice.

Timeless humanitarian challenges, a brief history

Rescuing those imperiled by wars and natural disasters has never been easy—there was no “golden age” of humanitarianism because moral, operational, and political challenges routinely plague humanitarian action. The ethical foundations for succor are ubiquitous in religious and cultural traditions. But institutionalizing the humanitarian impulse raises questions about who is entitled to assistance, how to distribute it, and its impact. To that end, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was founded on core principles—humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence—which uphold that all in need should receive aid regardless of other interests and agendas. The success of these principles helped alleviate suffering in armed conflicts from the Franco-Prussian War (1870– 1871) through World War II (1939–1945) and they guided the ICRC and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that built their reputations as protectors of the vulnerable and as viable components of global governance.

Yet, the patina of these accomplishments was tarnished. World War II witnessed a particularly shameful chapter in humanitarian history as the ICRC faced an impossible choice: publicly denouncing the Holocaust or collaborating with the Third Reich to secure access to prisoner-ofwar (POW) camps.¹ Respecting neutrality and state sovereignty was the price to provide relief; it was a price that the ICRC paid, choosing to protect allied POWs over concentration camp victims. A similar conundrum arose during the Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970), when the central government sought to manipulate relief by denying aid for those supporting Biafra’s attempted secession. The British Red Cross adhered to traditional principles whereas the French Red Cross objected. This skirmish over the sanctity of humanitarian principles foreshad-owed the tumultuous 1990s and gave birth to an alternative organization and norm: Médecins Sans Frontières, and the Doctors Without Borders movement, which prioritized maintaining solidarity with the needy and bearing witness.²

The humanitarian fallout from wars in the 20^th century’s final decade made apparent new possibilities for access and action—including more humanitarian space opened by military force and greater resources from public and private agencies—while also exposing new difficulties of coordination and coherence in the “business.”³ In particular, an infusion of more resources and the proliferation of...