Overview

The humanitarian sector’s commitment to the principle of neutrality has historically positioned it as a cornerstone of impartial intervention. As central as neutrality is to the practice of many humanitarians, it is increasingly coming under scrutiny in the face of impunity and amidst global movements against systemic oppression and calls for greater accountability (the Black Lives Matter movement, decolonisation, ending the occupation).

Nowhere has this tension been more evident than in the debates over Gaza over the past year, where a clear divide has emerged between the rank and file of humanitarian workers pre-dominantly from the Global South who are calling for stronger language and stance on Palestinian rights, and the sector’s decision-makers. While the sector states its commitment to decolonising aid and placing the narratives of affected communities at the centre, neutrality remains a complex and contested concept or ‘tool’: is it essential for enabling operational access, or is it at odds with other principles, such as humanity and justice, and the decolonising aid agenda?

Objectives

Building on previous debates about neutrality in the humanitarian sector, this session will examine the contested role of neutrality in contemporary humanitarianism, exploring its practical benefits as well as some of its ethical limitations. It aims to illuminate the tension between neutrality as a survival strategy and the imperative to confront systemic oppression and calls for solidarity from affected communities. The session will seek to unpack when neutrality is a valuable and useful tool in humanitarian action and when it is at odds with other principles such as humanity and the fight against systematic racism and oppression in the context of occupation, impunity and major violations of IHL law. Additionally, the session will also explore the border meaning of solidarity within the sector’s decolonization commitments and its implications for the decolonization agenda, by drawing on lessons learned from the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, where solidarity framed humanitarian discourse as a tool to challenge structural oppression.

Questions:

•To what extent is the concept of neutrality context-specific, and how does it shift based on the positionality of those defining and applying it? (Neutrality in theory vrs embodiment in practice)

•In what circumstances should neutrality be set aside in favor of advocating for human rights and justice? What risks and responsibilities accompany such decisions?

•How does the application of neutrality by international humanitarian agencies reflect and reinforce existing power imbalances, particularly between Western-dominated leadership and affected communities in the Global South?

•Can neutrality be reimagined as a context-dependent tool rather than a rigid principle? What frameworks or criteria should guide humanitarian actors in navigating these moral dilemmas?

•What steps must the humanitarian sector take to address in perpetuating structural inequalities, and how can it amplify the voices of oppressed communities in shaping its policies and practices?

•What can we learn from the global solidarity movement in apartheid south Africa and humanitarian action ?

Speakers

•Moderator: Ayah al Zayat, Independent Researcher

•Leen Fouad, Senior Research Officer, Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG)

•Bushra Khalidi, Policy Lead, Oxfam Country Office, Occupied Palestinian Territory

•Irwin Loy, Senior Policy Editor, New Humanitarian

•Meg Sattler, CEO, Ground Truth Solutions

Format

•Plenary discussion with 4-5 actors from across policy and practice

•After a brief introduction by the moderator, each panelist will be invited to give a 5-8 minute intervention on the topic.

•This will be followed by Q&A session from the moderator and audience.