Humanitarian crises across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region have drawn billions in aid from both traditional DAC (OECD Development Assistance Committee) donors and an increasingly active group of non-DAC donors, including Gulf states, Türkiye, and emerging economies. But how do these donors decide which crises to prioritize? While aid is often framed as neutral and needs-based, the reality is far more complex, involving strategic interests, geopolitical calculations, and media influence.
Humanitarian Needs vs. Strategic Interests: The Balancing Act
At its core, humanitarian aid should be allocated based on the severity of crises and the number of people affected. Key indicators that ideally guide donor decisions include:
- Number of People in Need – The larger the crisis (e.g., Syria’s displacement of millions), the more aid it should receive.
- Severity of Crisis – War, famine, and extreme emergencies should attract significant funding.
- Hunger and Food Security – High hunger index scores and famine warnings typically signal urgent need.
- Funding Gaps in Appeals – Donors look at UN appeal shortfalls to identify underfunded crises.
While these humanitarian factors should determine funding, they often compete with political and strategic interests. Donor governments weigh aid against their national priorities, leading to disparities in funding.
The Influence of Politics and Geopolitics
Donors do not allocate aid in a vacuum. Key non-humanitarian factors influencing their decisions include:
- Geographic Proximity – European donors prioritize conflicts like Syria due to potential refugee spillover, while Gulf states focus on Yemen due to regional security concerns.
- Political Alliances – Aid is often directed toward allies; for example, the U.S. and European donors heavily fund aid in Jordan and Lebanon, supporting their role as refugee host states.
- Media Coverage & Public Opinion – High-profile crises get more attention. The “CNN effect” suggests that when a humanitarian disaster receives significant media coverage, donor response increases.
- Domestic Politics – Donors are influenced by voter sentiment, diaspora lobbying, and security concerns. For instance, migration fears led to Europe’s heavy investment in refugee aid in Turkey.
| Priority Factor | DAC Donors | Non-DAC Donors |
|---|---|---|
| Severity of Crisis | High | Medium |
| Number of People in Need | High | Medium |
| Geographic Proximity | Medium | High |
| Cultural/Religious Affinity | Medium | High |
| Geopolitical Strategic Interest | Medium-High | High |
| Media Coverage & Public Opinion | Medium | Low-Medium |
| Domestic Political Influence | Medium | High |
DAC vs. Non-DAC Donors: Who Gives, Where, and Why?
DAC Donors: The Western Approach
DAC donors, including the U.S., UK, EU, and Japan, adhere to international humanitarian principles but often align aid with geopolitical goals. Western donors channel most funds through multilateral agencies like the UN and INGOs. They prioritize large-scale crises (Syria, Yemen) but also shape aid to support policy objectives, such as funding refugee-hosting states to curb migration to Europe.
Non-DAC Donors: Regional Solidarity and Influence
Non-DAC donors, including Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, and Turkey, tend to allocate aid based on regional ties, cultural affinity, and political influence. Gulf states, for instance, have heavily focused on Yemen, with Saudi Arabia and the UAE contributing billions to support their intervention. Turkey, meanwhile, has spent billions on Syrian refugees and cross-border aid, blending humanitarian response with foreign policy ambitions.
Aid as a Tool of Power: Foucault and Dependency Theory
French philosopher Michel Foucault’s power-knowledge concept explains how humanitarian aid is not just about relief but also about controlling the narrative of crises. Donors influence which crises gain attention, how needs are measured, and who receives aid—ultimately reinforcing their global power.
Dependency theory also applies: Aid can create long-term reliance, where recipient states become structurally dependent on donor funding. Palestine, Lebanon, and Yemen are prime examples where international assistance stabilizes the region but also keeps recipient governments aligned with donor interests.