In our modern era, the nature of crisis has fundamentally shifted. We are no longer dealing solely with isolated, short-term emergencies that can be “fixed” and then left behind. Instead, we are witnessing the rise of protracted crises—long-term, politically complex, and structurally devastating conflicts that challenge the very foundations of how we provide aid.
In my recent publication in the Journal of Public Policy & Governance, I explore why the humanitarian frameworks developed in the 20th century are increasingly failing to meet the needs of the 21st century, specifically within the Arab world.
The Flaw in the “Old” Model
Traditional humanitarianism was built on three core assumptions: temporariness, neutrality, and centralized coordination. These models were designed for rapid mobilization in acute, short-term disasters. However, in places like Gaza, Yemen, and Syria, these assumptions are being dismantled by reality:
- The Myth of Temporariness: Crises in these regions have lasted for years, even decades, transforming “emergency” aid into a permanent state of crisis management.
- The Struggle for Neutrality: In high-stakes political conflicts, aid is often instrumentalized by state and non-state actors, making “perfect” neutrality nearly impossible to maintain while ensuring access to those in need.
- The Limits of Top-Down Coordination: Centralized, UN-centric “cluster” systems often struggle to adapt to fragmented governance on the ground, sometimes overlooking the vital role of local networks.
Lessons from the Frontlines
By analyzing documentary evidence from Gaza, Yemen, and Syria, several critical insights emerge:
Context | Key Challenge | The Reality |
Gaza | Prolonged Containment | Repeated hostilities and blockades have forced health systems into a state of perpetual emergency, where aid must navigate deep political containment. +1 |
Yemen | Fragmented Governance | With multiple authorities claiming legitimacy, top-down international coordination often fails to reach localized priorities, leaving community networks to fill the gaps. +2 |
Syria | Politicized Access | The delivery of aid—especially cross-border—has become a tool for geopolitical negotiation, challenging the independence of humanitarian action. +2 |
A Path Forward: 21st-Century Humanitarianism
To move beyond episodic crisis management toward sustainable, equitable intervention, we must rethink our approach. My research proposes four key shifts:
- Strengthen Local Participation: Local NGOs and community networks often possess the trust and knowledge that international agencies lack. They must be central to planning and funding, not just “implementers”.
- Integrate Resilience with Relief: We cannot simply provide bandages for a decade. Aid must include long-term investments in healthcare infrastructure, education, and governance systems.
- Adopt Flexible Coordination: Our models must be adaptive, recognizing that conflict environments are dynamic and that “one-size-fits-all” hierarchies often fall short in fractured territories.
- Operationalize Political Awareness: We must acknowledge that humanitarian action is not separate from politics. Principles like neutrality should be interpreted flexibly to ensure that ethical standards are maintained without compromising survival and access.
“By rethinking humanitarian practice, we can move toward interventions that are not just faster, but more effective, equitable, and sustainable for the long term.”
Read the full article: Dahir, M. A. (2026). Rethinking Humanitarianism in Protracted Crises: Why 20th-Century Humanitarian Frameworks Fail in 21st-Century Protracted Crisis- The Case of Middle the East Crisis. Journal of Public Policy & Governance, Vol 10(1)
Download the PDF from here
https://drmohameddahir.co.ke/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Published-Article-Mohamed-Abdinoor-Dahir-28th-Ja_260128_194208.pdf
