Violent Extremism Is Killing Lifesaving Aid

Governments use the countering violence extremism concept to win voters, to convince them that they are fighting terrorism. Likewise, some aid organizations are following the same road to keep donors happy. And this, according to senior humanitarian policy adviser Kate McGrane, it is a huge problem.

There are four reasons states shouldn't use relief programs to deter radical extremists:

1. Humanitarian action should deliver aid based on needs alone, not based on radicalization.

2. Aid workers must be impartial and independent. McGrane uses an excellent example here: Should young men vulnerable to violent extremism be favored over young women or children?

3. Aid workers must be neutral, not taking sides in a conflict. They must deliver aid based on vulnerability, not based on the political agenda. Humanitarians have access to certain parts of the world because of their neutrality, not acting on behalf of any group. A great example is Doctors Without Borders. They usually have access to places nobody else has. The reason is that they remain neutral.

4. Lastly, McGrane argues that there is no evidence that aid reduces extremism, and therefore countering violent extremism is not a battle for humanitarians. They do respond to the effects of terrorism, but not to states' political agenda.