An interview with humanitarian Jean-Raphaël Poitou

Note from the OCC: In October of this year, one year after the outbreak of war between Israel and Palestine in the Gaza Strip region, an independent expert told the Third Committee of the United Nations that world Powers “all tacitly agree to allow starvation to be a geopolitical weapon, […] citing conflict as the leading driver of hunger and malnutrition, as materialized in the looming famine in Gaza.” 

As Jean-Raphaël Poitou emphasizes in the above conversation with the OCC, humanitarian workers face risks in trying to provide crucial services. Humanitarians are held up navigating sanctions and diplomatic obstacles, making aid delivery that much more difficult in already incredibly challenging situations. In analyzing key contemporary crises, the OCC considers the threat of hunger incredibly important, and hopes to draw attention not only to the role that political and violent conflict plays in food shortages, but also the impact of diplomatic processes.

On November 14, 2024, the United Nations stated that Israel’s actions in its conflict with Gaza exhibit characteristics of genocide. The measures cited include starvation as a weapon of war, restrictions on access to water and fuel, and blocking humanitarian aid. The long-standing conflict between Israel and Palestine over the Gaza Strip territory entered a renewed phase of violence in October 2023, when Hamas launched an attack in Israel, killing approximately 1,200 people and taking over 250 hostages. In response, Israel has since carried out extensive bombings targeting civilians, humanitarian workers, hospitals, water infrastructure, and food supplies, and the geographical scope of the conflict has since expanded beyond the Gaza Strip. The violence and political turmoil in this region have long been a source of food shortages and civilian starvation, but the outbreak of war in 2023 has led to an egregious hunger crisis.

Certainly, on a global and historical scale, political crises often, if not always, lead to hunger crises. Conflict impacts approximately 70% of all those facing hunger worldwide – about 309 million people – for a variety of reasons: displacement makes it difficult for those in need to maintain a proper diet and sustaining agriculture becomes nearly impossible when conflict devastates the land. Beyond the challenge of growing food, accessing it is equally difficult in countries where markets, roads, and transport systems have been destroyed.

Setting up humanitarian aid to address hunger crises is already logistically complex, but it is further complicated by sanctions and legal restrictions that require careful diplomatic navigation. The challenge of delivering aid without violating national or international laws often creates bureaucratic obstacles. Additionally, providing help frequently involves entering regions controlled by groups such as the Taliban, ISIS, or Hamas. Often, even when aid is delivered, humanitarian workers are harmed or killed in their efforts. In some cases, countries in need receive limited aid, or political calculations distract from humanitarian efforts, preventing those in need from accessing crucial resources. For instance, after Israel suspected members of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in Palestine were involved with Hamas in the October 7, 2023 attack, the United States paused additional funding. The U.S., which had previously been UNRWA’s largest donor, provided $340 million in 2022 and $700 million in 2023. UNRWA denied accusations, saying they had “never been substantiated”.

The following interview with humanitarian Jean-Raphaël Poitou addresses the underlying causes of global hunger that are not often discussed. For instance, Poitou discusses the role that sanctions and diplomatic regulations often impede humanitarian programs. He provides insight into the humanitarian experience, touching on the risk that he and those he works with face in trying to deliver resources to those in danger of severe malnutrition and starvation. Many aid workers, Poitou emphasizes, are still unable to leave Gaza.   

While Poitou is affiliated with Action Against Hunger, his comments were shared in a personal capacity and do not reflect the organization’s official stance.

Can you tell us more about your position with Action Against Hunger, and how you became involved with humanitarian efforts?

My role is Advocacy Desk Officer for the Middle East, and I am based in Madrid. My work focuses on two main areas: supporting advocacy efforts and promoting humanitarian principles, as well as managing issues related to sanctions and counterterrorism measures within the organization. Action Against Hunger Spain covers operations in Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria.

I originally started my career in the insurance industry, but I soon realized it was not aligned with my values or my vision of how the world should be. I decided to make a change, leaving that field to volunteer with Action Against Hunger. Over time, I gained extensive experience in the humanitarian sector. I worked heavily in operations, learning how to develop programs, oversee projects, and lead operations across entire regions. Eventually, I became the Head of Operations for the Middle East. From there, I transitioned into advocacy because I strongly believe in the potential of humanitarian diplomacy to make a significant impact.

How do sanctions and counterterrorism measures impact humanitarian aid?

The most noticeable impact is on bank transfers. For example, when I send money to non-governmental organizations for humanitarian operations, the transfer is sometimes blocked. In such cases, you have to negotiate with the bank. This process has become somewhat easier than it was five or six years ago because banks can now make exemptions for humanitarian aid. However, implementing these exemptions is complex and often involves extensive overcompliance. If you cannot receive the funds, it becomes impossible to carry out your activities. You cannot pay your staff, settle with providers, distribute food, or perform any other essential tasks related to humanitarian work.

Another significant issue is the capacity to import materials due to dual-use restrictions. Certain goods cannot be exported or imported because they could serve both military and civilian purposes. For instance, you need to ensure that items like solar panels or chlorine, which are vital for purifying water, are strictly used to meet humanitarian needs.

Have states recognized there is a difference between sanctioning a country and sanctioning its people?

As of December 2022, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2664, which provides humanitarian exemptions to UN sanctions. States are now working to expand the scope of these exemptions, not only for UN sanctions that they have incorporated into their domestic laws but also for other types of humanitarian-related sanctions.

For example, while the Syrian government is not sanctioned by the United Nations, it is sanctioned by the United States. The United States has implemented UN Resolution 2664 to approve humanitarian aid for Syria. Policymakers increasingly recognize that sanctions should neither target nor obstruct humanitarian access to vulnerable populations in sanctioned areas. This understanding has led to the introduction of more exemptions to sanctions, particularly in crises such as those in Ukraine and Gaza.

How do you know that the aid is going to the people who need it the most?

When we intervene, a key element for us as a humanitarian organization is adherence to the core humanitarian principles: neutrality, independence, impartiality, and humanity. These principles enable us to reach the most vulnerable populations.

To ensure aid reaches those who need it the most, we engage with various actors while implementing rigorous compliance and monitoring mechanisms. These systems help us verify that the people we select for assistance are indeed the most vulnerable. Typically, these are women and children under the age of five.

We assess factors such as income levels, the distance they must travel to access water, proximity to healthcare facilities, and similar indicators. Importantly, we do not consider political, ethnic, or religious affiliations when determining aid distribution.

Do you think access to food, water, and shelter combats citizen recruitment into terrorist organizations?

I do believe so. We refer to such groups as non-state armed groups, as the term “terrorist” is a political designation. What one country considers a terrorist group may not be recognized as such by another.

A clear example of this dynamic can be seen in a small, remote city in the middle east. In 2014–2015, it was extremely challenging to reach people in this area due to various political constraints. At that time, groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda were active in the region and were distributing cash to the local population. This financial aid served as a tool to recruit new members.

When humanitarian aid is absent, it can create an environment where criminal activities or non-state armed groups gain influence by providing resources. Ensuring access to food, water, and shelter is critical to preventing such groups from exploiting vulnerable communities.

Does the idea that support might be going to a “terrorist” organization make it difficult to bring aid to certain areas?

Yes, it can make delivering aid significantly more challenging. In Syria, for example, there was a time when we were unable to access certain areas where we wanted to work because we lacked sufficient funding. Governments were reluctant to support activities in regions controlled by the government of Bashar Al Assad.

Even though neither the Syrian government nor Bachar Al-Assad are considered terrorists, they are sanctioned unilaterally by states and institutions, as seen at the E.U. level.  “Terrorist” lists are different from “economic” sanctions, for example in the case of the list of E.U. sanctions on the one hand, and for what relates to the Specific E.U. sanctions on Syria on the other hand. We are extremely cautious about how we use and distribute aid, as well as the types of aid provided. We implement carefully designed mitigation measures to ensure that no state can exploit our work for propaganda or use our information against us. These measures are crucial for maintaining our neutrality and independence while ensuring that aid reaches those who need it most.

How do you navigate working with groups such as Hezbollah?

The United States considers both the political leadership and the military branch of Hezbollah a terrorist organization. This means we can engage with them to negotiate access and work in the region, but we cannot transfer funds or engage in any activity that could violate U.S. laws.

The European Union, on the other hand, differentiates between Hezbollah’s political and military branches. As an E.U. citizen, I cannot provide support to the military branch, but I can engage with the political branch or work with municipalities under Hezbollah’s influence. For example, I can implement programs aimed at improving women’s access to markets or similar community-focused initiatives.

Navigating these differences requires careful compliance with both U.S. and E.U. regulations while maintaining humanitarian neutrality and ensuring that aid reaches those in need.

Finally, with all the red tape and risk, why not just air drop food and water into these countries?

We do not support airdropping as a method of delivering aid. When supplies are dropped from the air, there is no way to ensure they reach the people who need them the most. Often, it is the strongest individuals who seize the goods, leaving the most vulnerable—such as elderly people and women—without access to critical resources. Airdropping should only ever be a last resort.

In Gaza, for example, we have urged states to stop relying on airdrops. While it may appear as though they are aiding the population, in reality, those goods often end up in the hands of those with more power or weapons. Instead, we need people on the ground to ensure that checkpoints are open, the number of trucks carrying aid is increased, and delivery routes are secure. It is also essential to secure the internal delivery routes within Gaza to guarantee that aid reaches those who need it most.

This is what we should be pushing for—not airdrops. We should push for ground routes.

This interview was led by Mallory Mast Taylor, a Political Science and Public Affairs Master of Arts student and research assistant at SLU-Madrid. She also is co-manager of the World Pulse podcast. 

To quote this article or video, please use the following reference: Taylor (2024), “Sanctioning Hunger: A View from the Field. An interview with humanitarian Jean-Raphaël Poitou” https://crisesobservatory.es/sanctioning-hunger-view-from-the-field.

The OCC publishes a wide range of opinions that are meant to help our readers think of International Relations. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and neither the OCC nor Saint Louis University can be held responsible for any use which may be made of the opinion of the author and/or the information contained therein.

Featured image generated by AI.