Why is Humanitarian Aid Rejected? Comparing the Motives of Democratic and Autocratic States

When people in authoritarian states are affected by a natural disaster or exceptionally suffer from war, states, international organizations, and non-state actors usually offer humanitarian aid. Humanitarian aid should follow the principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence. Why then do some states reject humanitarian aid when they are affected by a natural disaster? Myanmar is probably the example with the highest degree of popularity. In 2008 the military regime rejected large parts of international relief aid over a period of several weeks after cyclone Nargis has hit its south coast, although the cyclone left staggering 130,000 persons dead and 2,4 Mio. displaced. But also Japan rejected humanitarian assistance after the Fukushima disaster as much as the USA rejected help from others after Hurricane Katrina left its devastating mark. Why do both, democratic and autocratic states, reject aid? Explanations on the basis of regime type seem to miss some points, especially when one seeks to explain the broader phenomenon. I therefore propose to understand the rejection of international humanitarian assistance rather as a response to the politicization of humanitarian aid. To understand this puzzling behavior of some it is thus important to study the political context of offering aid and rejecting it. I propose how this political context can be captured with a social-constructivist analytical framework, further drawing on insights from Political Psychology. It will be decisive to study how the politicization is perceived by the receivers and how the rejection is justified and judged by the states that are affected by the disaster and other states, international organizations and non-governmental organizations which offered help. The paper will thus help to concretize the different ways in which humanitarian aid is politicized as well as it assesses the consequences of this development.