The UN security council voted on Thursday to authorise military action in Libya and called for member nations to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of civilians.

This was a long-awaited step, but past experience shows that this alone is not enough. While political discussions proceed, donor governments need to support independent and impartial humanitarian aid by going “back to basics”, providing aid based solely on meeting the assistance and protection needs of affected populations.

The dimensions of the humanitarian crisis in Libya continue to grow. Over the past weeks, almost 300,000 people have fled to Egypt and Tunisia. There are fears that 600,000 people are trapped. Widespread violence and government security controls are preventing humanitarian workers from reaching them.

The Libyan refugee crisis calls for a clear separation between the political interests of governments, which have mutated from allies of the Libyan government to enemies almost overnight, and the humanitarian imperative to prevent and alleviate suffering of the people caught in the crisis.

Now is a good time to recall the importance of a principled approach in humanitarian aid. In 2003, the world’s 23 leading donor governments developed and signed the principles of Good Humanitarian Donorship, a commitment to base their responses on the humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence: solely on the needs of those affected. They pledged not to allow other factors or interests to interfere with the delivery of assistance to the most vulnerable. And with talk of military interventions in Libya, it is also useful to recall that they pledged to protect humanitarian space and to carefully distinguish between humanitarian action and the use of military forces to guarantee aid delivery.

This month, the UN launched an appeal for $160m to cover the needs of an estimated 1 million people in the next three months. However, if major donor governments forget their responsibility of a principles-driven response to the humanitarian crisis while pursuing competing political agendas, there is a high risk of failure.

Our field research on donor government policies and practices in various crises, such as in Somalia and Afghanistan, points to an increasing politicisation and instrumentalisation of humanitarian aid. As a result, access by humanitarian organisations to populations is compromised, and many people do not receive the assistance and protection they need and deserve. Libya could become another case study in politicisation of aid.

In 2010, political and security interests drove many donor government aid decisions in some of the worst humanitarian crises. In Afghanistan, the use of foreign military forces in the distribution of humanitarian assistance as part of so-called “hearts and minds” campaigns has tarnished the neutral and impartial image of NGOs and UN agencies, placing them at risk of being targeted by the Taliban insurgency. It also means that the delivery of aid is prioritised to areas of strategic interest, leaving needs unmet in other parts of the country. In Somalia, where the transitional government receives uncritical and unconditional support from western powers, humanitarian actors have limited access due to threats from militant groups like al-Shabab, who view aid organisations as instruments of western policy, and because of severe restrictions from donor governments that prevent them from working in al-Shabab controlled areas.

Does this imply that affected populations in areas controlled by groups that are unpalatable to donor governments should not receive assistance? Absolutely not. Humanitarian aid must not be driven by political criteria, but by the obligation to assist and protect those who are most in need, regardless of any other factor.

The gravity of the rapidly unfolding events in Libya, together with the already-demonstrated contagion effect, the “closeness” to Europe (geographic and economic), the danger of Islamic extremism and al-Qaeda’s long shadow are all factors that have exacerbated the sense of urgency. The debate regarding international sanctions, military intervention, the support to opposition groups, and the possibility that Gaddafi may stand trial for crimes against humanity reflect the international community’s need to respond to the Libyan crisis, but also its anxiety and confusion.

The blurring boundaries between humanitarian assistance and the support of economic and strategic interests are a direct threat to providing an adequate humanitarian response. Being aware of this is perhaps the most important step to avoid humanitarian failure.

It is the duty of the governments that their response adheres to the Good Humanitarian Donorship principles. A first step would be to ensure a clear separation between humanitarian intervention and other objectives. This is the best way to guarantee that refugees, internally displaced people and others affected by the violence receive assistance and protection.

Is it possible? It is. It is also very necessary. And now, urgent.

• Ross Mountain, is director general of DARA, which works to improve the quality and effectiveness of aid for vulnerable populations in conflict, disasters and from climate change. He is the former deputy special representative of the UN secretary general, humanitarian coordinator and resident coordinator for the UN system for the Democratic Republic of the Congo