Humanitarian Aid in Afghanistan: Necessary but Insufficient
The UN's strategy of maintaining financial support to Afghanistan has been critical for Afghan civilians, but it must evolve.
The current humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan is one of the most complicated and politically charged challenges for the United Nations. Following the hasty escape of ex-President Ashraf Ghani and abrupt withdrawal of U.S forces by former President Joe Biden in 2021, Afghanistan’s economy contracted by a 27 percent from 2021 to 2023. The nation has gone in rank from 193 to 182 in the Humanitarian Development Index. The country is fully dependent on humanitarian aid. Some 24 million Afghans — more than half of the country’s citizens — depend on UN-coordinated relief assistance.
Delivering humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan must be an exercise in careful and delicate diplomacy. Since the establishment of the Interim Taliban Administration (ITA), the international community has poured $6.7 billion USD into Afghanistan in response to the humanitarian crisis that ensued after the political shift in the country. These funds have been used by UN Agencies and international humanitarian organizations for essential programs such as food assistance, healthcare, and education.
The UN’s continued operations in Afghanistan are a pragmatic practice of upholding the principle of humanity, making sure that aid reaches Afghans in need, especially women and girls, regardless of political dynamics and complexities.
Afghan girls are banned from accessing secondary and higher education. Women are not allowed to work and travel without a male companion.
Because of this repression, there have been calls by rights groups to lift the ITA’s severe restrictions on women’s access to education and employment as a contingency of receiving aid. The question is no longer whether aid should be provided, but whether it is provided in a way that reaches all the intended beneficiaries. Yet, putting an end to aid based on this issue could mean turning away millions of Afghans who are at risk of starvation, disease, and financial ruin.
Neutrality, which is another important principle of humanitarian action, is often misinterpreted: It does not mean silence or passivity. Rather, it means humanitarian organizations act independently regardless of political realities and conflict.
In Afghanistan neutrality has always been fragile. The current flow of donor aid, while considered critical, has raised concerns about potentially supporting the ITA’s influence and continuation of power.
The United Nations Assistance Mission for Afghanistan (UNAMA) has cautiously navigated this dilemma by smartly keeping a degree of distance from the ITA, making sure that humanitarian aid reaches local Afghans. This has allowed UNAMA to monitor the situation closely and be vocal about violations of human rights while also operating across the country.
Still, many critics in western capitals argue that donor funds indirectly strengthen the grip of ITA on power. Yet contextual analyses of Afghanistan show that continuing humanitarian operations is the only viable approach to address the humanitarian crisis. In fact, maintaining and enlarging the humanitarian presence may be the most productive move.
Cutting off aid would send a clear message of no engagement with the ITA. It might be aligned with current populist anti-foreign aid rhetoric in the current U.S administration but it would be a final blow to hope for millions. More civilians — mostly female-headed households — would face situations like lining up at of local bakeries hoping for someone to buy them a piece of bread. More women would die from pregnancy-related issues as under-funded hospitals and local clinics would collapse. Children at the primary level would no longer be in school.
Stripping away the UN’s leverage would only benefit the hardliners within ITA in terms of strengthening their influence without any engagement mechanism in place to monitor human rights and work for moderating the current policies. Strategically, an aid suspension would be a huge blow to the UN’s credibility, reinforcing the perception that the UN cannot act on its own and is dependent on political dynamics, particularly in western capitals.
Maintaining the flow of humanitarian funds offers a pragmatic, if imperfect, solution. By continuing financial support, the UN and its partners can preserve critical services while keeping channels of engagement open. But this approach must evolve.
Establishing strong monitoring mechanisms could result in further transparency and mitigate the risk of misappropriation of funds. Allocating funds through digital platforms could also create more accountability. It also would be a significant support to reviving Afghanistan’s financial sector.
No matter which path the international community chooses, enduring stability in Afghanistan cannot be achieved through perpetual humanitarian assistance. The UN and its international and local partners must design alternative economic pathways like the immediate activation of the Swiss-based Afghan Fund, which amounts to 3.5 billion in frozen assets. These funds could be used for financing nationwide economic development projects to reduce the country’s reliance on aid.
Supporting digital literacy and financial technology could empower women by enabling them to participate in the digital economy even under the current restrictive policy environment. Such initiatives call for international coordination and purpose-driven investments that could create part of a roadmap to sustainable economic recovery.
The international community has two options: Maintain humanitarian funding under the current policy environment or cut off aid and risk aggravating an already severe humanitarian crisis. Neither option would lead to sustainable economic development, but complete disengagement would be a significant humanitarian failure.
For now, the most sustainable strategy is to re-think the delivery of aid making sure that it contributes to developing new financial streams, strengthening monitoring and oversight, and using every possible diplomatic channel to push for progress.
If the UN is to preserve its credibility in the eyes of the world as a source of directing humanitarian aid, it must ensure a balance of providing relief while closely monitoring human rights violations and a severe lack of freedom for women in Afghanistan.
This is a critical moment. Afghanistan’s crisis is not just a test of the effectiveness of aid for its economy and its people. It is a turning point that shapes the future of principles that form the cornerstone of international humanitarianism itself.
Fayez J. Sahak is the CEO of Climate-Displacement Action and a Master of Public Policy candidate at McGill University’s Max Bell School of Public Policy. With over a decade of experience in humanitarian policy, disaster resilience, and rights-based development, he has worked across the Global South, designing climate adaptation policies, refugee protection frameworks, and governance strategies for displaced communities.