There also has been a rise in politically motivated attacks. Many rebel and insurgent groups no longer see humanitarian workers as neutral or independent. Aid agencies have long criticized Western troops in Afghanistan and Iraq for carrying out small development projects, "blurring the lines" between military and humanitarian actors.
The problem is much deeper and more widespread, however. Many Western aid agencies have agendas, such as support for women's rights, that put them directly at odds with religiously motivated insurgents like the Taliban -- who, for instance, go to great lengths to attack girls' schools.
There's also no denying the effect of Iraq. Attacks against humanitarian workers there shattered whatever remained of the taboo against such acts, and did so in a way that captured massive media attention.
As humanitarian agencies continue reevaluating how they provide assistance in dangerous conflicts, Iraq offers a possible glimpse of the future. The lack of security forced most aid agencies there to leave. Instead, they now try to provide services through remote programming, putting projects into effect through local partners. This method tends to be less efficient, however, and it also increases the potential for corruption.
The organizations that stayed have adopted precautions: Some dramatically limit the extent to which staff can travel, or even leave their compounds, which makes it difficult to deliver aid effectively. Other agencies have partnered with the military for protection, an approach that has been criticized within the humanitarian community for further eroding the line between the aid agencies and the military.
The stakes are high. In many conflicts, humanitarian assistance can be the difference between life and death. In Afghanistan, for instance, 45% of the population struggles to find enough to eat, while one in five children die before the age of 5. Increasingly, aid workers face an agonizing choice between their own safety and their sense of commitment to those most in need.
