In various areas around the globe, humanitarian aid is being blocked from reaching the millions of people in desperate need of help.

Deprivation of basic necessities – withholding food, and deliberately starving civilians – as a weapon of war. In many conflicts, safe and unhindered access to vulnerable civilian populations by relief workers is only granted sporadically, if at all.

The agony of civilians in such isolated circumstances is exacerbated by the fact that in today's warfare, particularly internal conflicts, women, children and the elderly are often targeted as part of a political strategy. These conflicts are characterized by a vicious blend of ethnic, religious or social hatred and envy often mobilized by a small elite for reasons of personal or political short-term gain.

Access is often denied because it is viewed as contrary to the political and military objectives of a warring party. Where, for example, civilians are deliberately attacked and expelled from their homes due to their ethnicity or religious faith, any outside support, to these civilians, might be perceived as interference even though they are purely humanitarian.

Feeding those who are the targets of ethnic cleansing, for example, would run contrary to the horrific goals of such a campaign. However, the primary responsibility for the protection of civilians rests with Governments, as stated in the Guiding Principles on Humanitarian Assistance.

At the same time, all armed groups have a direct responsibility to protect civilian populations according to the Geneva Conventions and customary international humanitarian law. Additionally, displaced persons and other victims of conflict are entitled to international protection (see specifically, art. 4,5,7, 11) and assistance where it is not available from their own national authorities.

People who are without food, water, shelter or medical care cannot wait for a conflict to end in order to receive life saving assistance. As a result, the United Nations and its partners must often negotiate access agreements with all warring parties. Such negotiations must be understood by all to be neutral and a humanitarian necessity. All armed groups must be engaged in constructive dialogues. Governments, concerned that such engagements might legitimize armed groups, should be guided by their overriding obligation to protect each and every civilian within their jurisdiction, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, religion or political conviction.

Access is not a simple one-time effort but a concept that involves dimensions of time and space. Negotiations should always have a clear objective and lead to unimpeded, timely, safe, and sustained humanitarian space to reach this objective. Access must be obtained, managed and maintained throughout a conflict, by keeping the parties continuously engaged. The inability of aid agencies operating in Sierra Leone to make, throughout 1998, even initial contacts with the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) illustrates the difficulties in engaging rebel groups in a structured dialogue. Establishing a regular rapport and having freedom of movement in the conflict area can contribute to normalization and building confidence among war affected populations.