INTRODUCTION

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have led to frequently heated debate in the archaeological community that has touched on issues extensively examined in humanitarian aid. The so-called ‘new wars’ of the 1990s led to a development in humanitarian aid referred to as ‘new humanitarianism’. This human-rights-based policy noted that, in modern conflict, the sovereignty of a state was no longer regarded as sacred, a stance that allowed international civil society to take sides in a conflict and intervene on behalf of those whose rights were being seriously violated. This was diametrically opposed to the views of the proponents of ‘classical humanitarianism’, who maintained their belief in neutrality as an essential strategy to reach all those who suffer during an armed conflict. In the debate on humanitarianism the notion of ‘neutrality’ plays a key part as it is defined differently by the various stakeholders – the individuals and institutions who are involved by choice or default and who need to be taken into consideration.

CLASSICAL HUMANITARIANISM

In 1965 national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and the Internal Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) proclaimed their new fundamental guiding principles. Encompassing ideas dating back to the 18th century (see, for example, Trevelyan 1964, 103), the four humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence formed the basis for the policy. As in the past, the principles underpinned a philosophy directed towards practical efforts to improve the lives of the most weak.

During the 1960s, international development assistance gained momentum. In particular, the New Left and the liberal Christians of the booming welfare states in the West felt it irresponsible not to share their wealth with the starving populations in the South and the East. A decade later many development organisations were dissatisfied with the results. Young Western idealists who identified with the oppressed, struggling for survival, demanded immediate and concrete results – humanitarian action became a tool that satisfied their demands and there was a proliferation of humanitarian nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) that, unsurprisingly, lacked any field experience. Though these NGOs moved centre stage, there was surprisingly little debate about the theoretical premises and content of their humanitarianism. Their standards, if any were professed at all, were based on vaguely formulated ethics (ICRC 2004).