Humanitarian workers need more than neutrality to survive

Audio By Vocalize

When Kenya’s youth-led Gen Z protests began in mid-2024, Nairobi’s streets saw widespread demonstrations and heightened tension. Throughout this period, the Kenya Red Cross Society provided emergency care, treated the injured, offered psychosocial support, and evacuated the wounded. However, humanitarian service providers faced attacks, with ambulances targeted, volunteers harassed, and the principle of neutrality challenged.

Kenya’s experience is part of a global trend where civil unrest increasingly places the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement at the centre of political tension, exposing two critical limitations of traditional humanitarian models that endanger neutrality: The challenge of maintaining impartiality amid polarised political landscapes and the vulnerability to misinformation that puts trust at risk.

The movement’s core principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence are being tested as never before, as seen in countries such as Myanmar, Sudan, Colombia, Ukraine, France, and Germany, where the emblem that once ensured safe passage is no longer universally respected.

In Myanmar, following the 2021 military coup, Red Cross volunteers operating ambulances and first-aid stations were beaten, arrested, and accused of siding with protesters. Emergency vehicles were vandalised, and despite assisting thousands of injured civilians, humanitarian workers were targeted by both authorities and crowds.

In Sudan, risks have been even greater, with Red Crescent volunteers collecting data being shot or assaulted during the recent conflict, and several being killed while on duty. Their only crime was wearing an emblem intended to signal protection.

During Colombia's 2021 protests, demonstrators attacked ambulances, mistakenly believing medics were cooperating with police. In Ukraine, misinformation campaigns accused the Red Cross of political bias, leading to hostility toward volunteers. Similarly, in Germany during anti-refugee riots in 2015, Red Cross workers operating shelters and tent camps for asylum seekers were repeatedly attacked by far-right mobs.

According to Human Rights Watch, right-wing extremists rampaged for three consecutive nights in front of a centre for asylum seekers in Heidenau, Saxony, attacking police with bottles, stones, and fireworks. The Washington Post reported that in Dresden, "a group of right-wing protesters attacked Red Cross workers as they sought to set up a tent compound for refugees." These incidents illustrate that even in stable democracies, humanitarian workers can become targets when their assistance is perceived through a political lens.

Traditional humanitarian and response frameworks were designed for natural disasters and armed conflict, where roles and authority are often clearer. Civil unrest, however, presents a complex situation in the maintenance of neutrality where the unpredictability of protests, their lack of central leadership and the rapid spread of information (including misinformation on social media) increase scrutiny and the risk of perceived partiality. As a result, neutrality may be questioned or rejected by both state and non-state actors, leading to suspicion or hostility toward humanitarian workers. There is a need for ongoing negotiation and clear communication of humanitarian principles to maintain trust and access during instances of political instability and civil unrest.

Neutrality does not require silence, nor does impartiality require passivity. However, civil unrest forces humanitarian actors to confront complex ethical dilemmas that test their core principles. For example, when medics witness police brutality, they must balance the moral imperative to speak out against the risk of undermining perceived neutrality, which could limit future access. If demonstrators use ambulances as shields, responders must choose between providing impartial care and preventing the misuse of resources. When authorities restrict access to injured protesters, organisations must balance respect for state sovereignty with their mandate to provide care based solely on need.

The ongoing threat of misinformation targeting humanitarian agencies raises critical questions about the extent of their responsibility to protect their personnel while maintaining public credibility. These challenges require continuous ethical review and careful balancing of principles in daily operations. If policy frameworks, safer access protocols and communication strategies do not adapt, the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement risks losing the trust needed for community access and effective humanitarian action.

To safely deliver assistance and uphold humanitarian principles during civil unrest, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement should adopt a proactive communication and engagement strategy. This includes transparent public statements, targeted educational campaigns to clarify the organisation’s mandate and real-time social media monitoring to counter misinformation. Regularly publishing verified updates can reinforce the movement’s commitment to neutrality, impartiality and independence. However, the success of this approach depends on sufficient human and financial resources, coordinated messaging and existing contextual realities.

Dialogue with both authorities and protesters is essential. Before large demonstrations, national societies should negotiate access and communicate with all stakeholders to reduce confrontation and protect humanitarian corridors. 

As civil unrest becomes more frequent worldwide, the question is not whether humanitarian organisations will operate in politically charged environments but whether the global humanitarian system will evolve quickly enough to protect its personnel, maintain trust and remain effective.

Neutrality represents moral courage, not weakness; however, courage alone is not enough. The effectiveness and integrity of humanitarian work depend on specific reforms, stronger protections for volunteers and meaningful public engagement.