U.S. Air Force crewmembers prepared pallets of relief supplies on a C-17 cargo jet bound for Afghanistan.

Washington -- The United States long has understood that humanitarian assistance for victims of natural or man-made disasters must be offered without political considerations, because saving lives and livelihoods demands nothing less.

"Humanitarian assistance has generally been provided on a nonpolitical basis, dedicated to relieving the suffering of humanity without taking sides in a disagreement or conflict, armed or otherwise. This approach has saved millions of lives," says James Warlick, the principal deputy assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs.

This has been the situation for aid workers since the earliest days of the modern humanitarian movement, launched by Henri Dunant after the Battle of Solferino in northern Italy in 1859, Warlick said. "Only by keeping their efforts separate from the political positions and alliances established by governments could they obtain the consent of sovereign governments."

In an ideal situation, a nation would welcome assistance from other nations and nongovernmental humanitarian organizations, but when U.S. assistance is shunned, it is necessary to turn to the United Nations and private organizations whose goals, structures and providers closely parallel those of the United States, Warlick said.

"Our close relations with other bilateral donor agencies, the Red Cross movement, and the United Nations humanitarian agencies gives us numerous policy options and are essential to effective, impartial, civilian-led interventions," Warlick said in recent congressional testimony.

"Even when a U.S. presence is not welcome in a particular country, a U.N. presence can assure the adherence to humanitarian policies, procedures and goals similar to our own. Often, the U.N. presence also provides an umbrella through which U.S. goods and services can reach those in need," he said.

In some instances, regional groups can convince a nation that is rejecting assistance to accept international offers of aid. "When a state is unable to assist its people and unwilling to accept foreign assistance, the international community, through the United Nations, can use diplomatic and other peaceful means to try to persuade the state to allow assistance in," Warlick said.

"The art of humanitarian response lies in finding the best combination of responders for a specific crisis," Warlick told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee hearing on international disaster assistance.

James Kunder, acting deputy administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), told the subcommittee that the overriding principle that guides USAID in its far-reaching work is that human suffering should be addressed wherever it is found. In the past five years alone, Kunder said, USAID has responded to 355 declared disasters in all regions of the world. Many of these disasters largely go unnoticed by the rest of the world, he said.

"USAID provides humanitarian assistance that is politically neutral, socially impartial and is based on victims' needs rather than political factors," Kunder said. "USAID disaster response programs strive to live up to the principle of 'do no harm' and seek, to the extent possible, to provide protection to beneficiaries and build local capacities."

Many in Congress recalled the recent experience with the military junta that rules Burma and its reluctance to permit the United States and other nations to provide vitally needed humanitarian assistance directly to its people in the aftermath of the May 2 cyclone that struck the Irrawaddy Delta region.

The Senate subcommittee was examining U.S. policy options to determine what worked and if additional legislation might be needed to strengthen U.S. assistance efforts. The other purpose of the hearing was to determine if there is adequate funding provided for such needs in the annual budget.

Kunder said in events such as the Burma cyclone, it is critical for the United States to have policy options that help overcome political obstructions to humanitarian assistance.

Warlick said the United States has learned from situations like the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that the U.S. armed forces can become vital aid providers in ways no other relief agencies can. "When the tsunami devastated the lives of millions of people in the Indian Ocean states, the U.S. military was a key partner in putting together a rapid and effective response," he said.

With situations like that in Burma, the United States does have other options. "The question -- what is our last resort if all else fails? -- poses the greatest challenge in humanitarian intervention," Warlick said. There are two components to consider: one legal and the other practical.

The international community can act, even without the consent of the host government, under decisions of the U.N. Security Council and Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. The decision to act is based on a determination by the Security Council that the situation presents a threat to international peace and security, Warlick said.

In 2005, world leaders determined that nations have a primary responsibility to protect their own people and that the international community has a responsibility to act when ineffective governments fail to protect the most vulnerable in their societies, Warlick said. The 2005 U.N. World Summit Document specifically established that nations have a "responsibility to protect" populations from genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Warlick said the broader principle that seemingly internal actions can threaten international peace and security is an important one, which could be applied legitimately in a humanitarian crisis.

But forcing intervention for humanitarian purposes may have unintended consequences by putting more people at risk and affecting whatever assistance that already might be flowing into a country, Warlick said. "Military intervention may well involve interruption of commercial activity, including the delivery of private aid, and displacement of previously unaffected portions of the population," he said.

During the initial weeks of the crisis in Burma, France threatened to seek U.N. Security Council authority to force humanitarian aid intervention under the "responsibility to protect" clause of the World Summit Document. Ultimately, that action was not taken.

While diplomatic negotiations continued with Burma, work was under way in Burma to relieve the suffering, Warlick said. Nongovernmental organizations and U.N. agencies already operating in Burma, often with financial support from USAID and the State Department, began to assess humanitarian needs, coordinate responses and deliver relief. Burma's ruling junta, however, finally agreed to allow a regional response led by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

"Darfur, however, is an example where both lack of security on the ground and government interference impede humanitarian operations," Warlick said.

Prepared testimony for the hearing is available on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Web site.