Blog Post | Navigating the Intricacies: Strategic Networking and Humanitarian Diplomacy
In the complex and challenging landscape of humanitarian operations, engaging with states and their governments is a critical aspect to humanitarian negotiations that demands careful consideration. This blog post interrogates the intricacies of this engagement, finding that there is an alignment between strategic networking and engagement and the concept of humanitarian diplomacy.
Humanitarian diplomacy: Maximising spaces for humanitarian operations
Humanitarian organisations, including international non-governmental organisations (INGOs), must engage with states to negotiate the parameters of their presence and actions. As the government of a country retains the ultimate authority and responsibility for its citizens, all humanitarian organisations must negotiate its presence within a state or territory.
This relationship is often fraught with difficulties, as governments place barriers to access, and negotiations can be tense and opaque. This is partially due to the different ‘frames of reference’ through which each interlocutor sees the negotiation: with humanitarian organisations led by humanitarian principles, and governments led by their own political, economic, and security priorities. In recent decades, the challenge of ‘restricting humanitarian space’ has become a significant concern in the humanitarian sector: when political actors, particularly governments, prevent or obstruct humanitarian organisations from providing aid to those in need. This trend is often linked to the perceived global rise of authoritarianism.
There are various ways to frame the relationship between states and international humanitarian actors [1]. One useful concept is ‘humanitarian diplomacy,’ which ‘seeks to create avenues to persuade decision makers and opinion leaders to act, at all times, in the interests of vulnerable people and with full respect for fundamental humanitarian principles.' [2] Whilst this is the formalised conception of humanitarian diplomacy, I would suggest that actual negotiations are chaotic and affected both by interpersonal relationships and the perceptions of individual INGOs.
How do states understand humanitarian organisations?
A Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) research project [3] studied the principal factors influencing states' attitudes towards INGOs during crises, helping it gain insights into how humanitarian negotiations work. Case studies were conducted in Bangladesh, the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI), Chad, and Italy, representing diverse geographical, cultural, and socio-economic contexts. Each case study focused on interviewing state actors and their proxies to understand their perspectives.
Two important themes emerged:
- State Perspectives: States have their own views on engaging with international aid actors, shaped by their historical and cultural contexts. States do not take the INGO narrative at face value, but interpret their words and actions through their own political and cultural lenes.
- Adaptability of Humanitarian Aid: Humanitarian aid must be adaptable to different contexts and state attitudes. There is no ‘one size fits all’ type of aid programming. INGOs must negotiate within each unique political environment.
Strategic and tactical engagement
The research findings differentiated between ‘strategic’ and ‘tactical’ levels of engagement. The tactical level addresses immediate problems: often relating to tax and customs authorities, visas and travel permits, or lower-level negotiations about reporting mechanisms. Strategic level negotiations engage in political discussions with government officials involved with policy formulation rather than implementation. The strategic level does not always imply ‘longer-term’ in time, but does imply a higher-level outlook. In most cases, tactical issues demanded immediate attention, whilst strategic engagement was neglected. Effective engagement requires understanding both levels and developing robust strategic frameworks for each.
Strategic engagement in action: Ensuring continued presence and programming
As an example of strategic engagement, when a government department issued ten ‘letters of objection’ demanding the departure of certain international staff from the country, MSF engaged with high-level allies such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the commissioner for refugees. Their intervention led to the withdrawal of the objection letters. Upon investigation, it was revealed that the objection letters stemmed from dismissed doctors that had connections to the security agencies. This reversal was only possible because MSF had engaged in strategic networking with higher-level authorities who considered that MSF was worthwhile ‘protecting’ as an important implementer of humanitarian activities.
This example shows both the value of strategic networking in solving larger problems but also in solidifying the value of principled humanitarian action in the eyes of political decision-makers.
Humanitarian diplomacy as strategic-level engagement
Tactical engagement, then, gets the day-to-day activities done, whereas strategic engagement has a more political function. If tactical level negotiations focus on activities implemented by functionaries or civil servants, the strategic level focuses on policy makers and political actors. I believe that the strategic level is akin to humanitarian diplomacy, which aims to ensure that political authorities act, at all times, in the interests of vulnerable people and with full respect for fundamental humanitarian principles. The outcomes of both are similar; with humanitarian space and access protected, and humanitarian workers able to better carry out their work.
This distinction is important, as when humanitarians neglect strategic networking by putting all their attention on to tactical level negotiations, they will miss opportunities to influence policy decision-makers and thus effect longer-term change, i.e., humanitarian diplomacy. The humanitarian project is bigger than day-to-day access, but must also address larger issues of principles and policies.
Rather than a mere substitution of terms, the integration of strategic level engagement in humanitarian diplomacy may help humanitarians clarify the role and purpose of higher-level strategic networking and policy-level engagement in humanitarian negotiations.
It is recommended that humanitarian organisations put more emphasis on this type of engagement, including by increasing their capacity and training in these areas.
Andrew Cunningham, Reflection and Analysis Network, Médecins Sans Frontières
[1] Cunningham, A. J. (2018). International humanitarian NGOs and state relations: politics, principles and identity. Routledge.
[2] Kavak, H. Z. (Ed.). (2024). Understanding Humanitarian Diplomacy: Principles and Practice. Routledge.
[3] Cunningham, A., & Healy, S. (2025). Authoritarian practices on the rise? Reflections from a Médecins Sans Frontières research programme on the engagement between international humanitarian non-governmental organisations and states. Frontiers in Political Science, 7, 1358889. See also: Healy, S., & Cunningham, A. J. (2024). The friction of practice–reflecting on the Médecins Sans Frontières experience with ‘authoritarian regimes’. In Authoritarian practices and humanitarian negotiations. Routledge.