South Sudan creation as a state and recent history impose the fact that humanitarian aid is now days a weapon. Without "Life Line Sudan" operation led by UNICEF and basically conducted by the civilian agencies of the United Nation, John Garang would never have been in position to impose a peace agreement to Khartoum.
In south Sudan, humanitarian action has been the logistic and health service of SPLA. Even if NGOs and UN agencies did not provide ammunitions and weapons, they feed, dressed and healed SPLA.
Humanitarian action is by definition neutral according to Geneva Convention. But even in Geneva convention the definition of neutrality is linked, bound and made to be in accordance to La Haye convention. If Geneva convention are seen now as the rules of war, it is forgetting that La Haye convention are the law of war. Those laws are defining boundaries of humanitarian action. According to La Haye convention, a neutral action does not have to provide any support that would influence war.
But is that possible for any one to stand still and not provide support, even through food and medicine, to a just cause? Would have it been just to let South Sudanese been killed and denied their right to be different in the name of neutrality?
On the opposite, would have it just to let the hutu starve and die in Zaire as Kagame was hunting them down after they committed genocide? Would have it been just to let the people guilty of an unforgivable crime made in the name of an unjust cause?
Is moral applicable to humanitarian action? And if yes, what would be a just or unjust humanitarian cause?