This working paper examines the complex dynamics between civil society, voluntary relief organizations, and the US Congress during the Biafra crisis (1967–1970).

It investigates how grassroots advocacy and moral imperatives influenced the US Congress and public opinion, ultimately shaping the dynamics of humanitarian aid. Relief agencies employed moralistic discourses to garner support and donations, while members of Congress often used appeals for aid as a point of departure for making policy proposals, reshaping the landscape of aid. Initiatives that maintained a pro-relief posture were warmly embraced by legislators, in contrast to groups which were involved in political advocacy. At the same time, fundraising and political discourses constructed Biafran relief as an issue related to domestic concerns.

The paper also situates the Biafran experience within the broader context of expressive humanitarianism, and underscores the evolving role of moral discourse in mobilizing public sentiment and political action, in a process in which media, celebrity advocacy, and civil engagement played crucial roles. By evaluating the implications of public awareness and congressional pressure on US relief policymaking during the Biafran War, the paper illuminates the interaction between domestic politics and international humanitarian crises, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of the intricate interplay between public advocacy, government policy, and the moral economy of aid.  

Humanitært arbeid har vært en sentral del av det nordiske internasjonale arbeidet siden begynnelsen av 1900-tallet. Det har utviklet seg fra individuelle initiativer til institusjonalisert og myndighetsdrevet arbeid. Det nordiske humanitære arbeidet er internasjonalt anerkjent, og utviklingen reflekterer både kontinuitet og strategisk tilpasning. Etter den kalde krigen tok slutt tilpasset det nordiske humanitære arbeidet seg nye geopolitiske forhold, mens ‘humanitære intervensjoner’ på steder som Somalia og Kosovo utfordret tradisjonelle nordiske prinsipper om fred og nøytralitet. På 2000-tallet står nordisk humanitært arbeid overfor utfordringer som langvarige konflikter, politisering av bistand og stadig mer ekstreme hendelser knyttet til vær. De nordiske landene fortsetter å opprettholde sitt rykte som humanitære ledere, både gjennom nasjonal politikk og gjennom organisasjoner i sivilsamfunnet, selv om arbeidet også møter kritikk.

Humanitarianism has been a defining feature of Nordic international engagement since the beginning of the 20th century. Its evolution from individual initiatives to a state-led, institutionalised, and globally recognised tradition reflects both continuity and strategic adaptation. After the end of the Cold War, Nordic humanitarianism adjusted to new geopolitical conditions, while ‘humanitarian interventions’ in places like Somalia and Kosovo challenged traditional Nordic principles of peace and neutrality. Nordic humanitarianism in the 21st century is confronted with challenges such as protracted conflicts, politicisation of aid and increasingly extreme weather events. The Nordic countries continue to uphold their reputation as humanitarian leaders, both through national policies and civil society organisations although not without critique.

This article highlights the shift from “organized humanitarianism” to “expressive humanitarianism”, characterized by the increasing influence of four key elements: media, voluntary organizations, witness accounts, and the role of spectacle and celebrities. This research offers valuable empirical context for the transformation of humanitarianism around 1970.