Yemen is a country that could only benefit from the efforts of skilled and dedicated humanitarians. The World Bank estimates that 17 million Yemenis – half the population – face food insecurity, and 18 million lack access to safe drinking water and sanitation.
Yet, despite Yemen’s chronic state of crisis, dozens of UN staff members are in the custody of the country’s Houthi rebels. Raids on UN premises in Sanaa less than a month ago forced the organisation’s resident co-ordinator to relocate operations to Aden, out of the militants’ reach. Dangers such as these face humanitarians across the world – last month the UN confirmed that a record 383 relief workers were killed globally in 2024, nearly half of them in Gaza.
Rarely has it been so dangerous for humanitarian staff working in the field. Palestine is a prime example; medics and aid workers operating in Gaza have been killed despite displaying insignia, having marked vehicles and identifying themselves and their movements to the Israeli military. Humanitarians can also fall victim to disinformation and false accusations that fuel armed groups’ suspicion and paranoia, as in Yemen.
The threats posed to aid workers were highlighted at the UN General Assembly in New York this week as the UAE joined liked-minded member states in signing a Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel. This aims to help states improve safety and security for aid workers, working in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2730. Passed in May of last year, this resolution calls on states to “respect and protect United Nations and humanitarian personnel in accordance with their obligations under international law”.
The UN has its limitations and some may be sceptical that drafting and signing declarations will not be enough to ensure the safety of aid workers in volatile and dangerous environments. Although it is true that resolutions and statements in and of themselves do not guarantee more safety, they do establish legal, political and diplomatic norms that aid workers are not to be touched – no perpetrator can say they didn’t know.
Such public and high-level agreements also establish frameworks for transparency and engagement by trusted intermediaries. The International Committee of the Red Cross, for example, plays an important role in liaising with often-violent non-state actors. In October, the organisation said that it had established “successful contact with 60 per cent of armed groups worldwide”, building on the ICRC’s “long history of confidential humanitarian engagement with armed groups to alleviate and prevent the suffering of persons living in areas controlled by these groups”.
Such engagement – backed up by public declarations and commitments from the international community that it will stand up for humanitarian personnel – can lead to better outcomes, such as improved access to vulnerable populations and more security for relief workers. However, more can be done. Reduced international funding for aid missions, including their security component, puts more humanitarians at risk. So too does the militarisation of aid, such as the highly controversial US and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Fund.
Given the inherent dangers and complexity of running successful aid missions, anything that can mitigate the risks facing aid workers is significant. That the issue has been highlighted at the highest level of the UN General Assembly is a good way to commemorate 80 years since the establishment of the only truly global governance system the world has.
