I completely disagree with that. This aid is not being provided from an ethnocentric perpsective. This aid is not being provided with the specific intent of "saving souls through the preaching of the Gospel". This aid does not promote one specific religious doctrine over all others.
Assisting a culture in advancing based on their specific cultural perspective is quite different than lacking consideration for the culture's religious beliefs. Everyone can see the advantage of improved health care or food provided to areas where people are starving. That is humanitarian aid. However, preaching to them about your own religious belief system as being superior to their own does fall into the category of humanitarian aid.
I think you intended to say "not" in that last line? As in, does "not" fall into into the category of humanitarian aid?
UN (and U.S.) aid does not carry an overtly religious label, true. But it certainly comes from the Western cultural perspective generally, which has been formed by our Judeo-Christian heritage. We believe - and one could say, "with religious fervor," - that girls should not be sold into sex slavery, that girls deserve an education, that babies should be vaccinated against disease, etc.
Many religious and cultural groups in Africa and Asia and elsewhere do not share those beliefs. We hope to change them, and we call that "progress."
We don't slap a particular label on it. Still, our belief system as Americans is quite firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian principles, whether we as individuals happen to be believers or not.
Just the basic belief of giving charity comes from a religious perspective. Oddly enough, up until around WWI, giving foreign aid was considered to be unconstitutional. A lot of aid was given privately, much of it from wealthy philanthopists, many of whom were motivated by religious reasons. Finally the U.S. gov't decided that it was all right for aid to come under governmental auspices, as well as private donors.
It took a few court decisions to reach that point.
