SCHR: Updated position paper on civil-military relations

SCHR have revised and updated their position paper on Civil Military relations, first written in 2001 and updated in 2004, and have produced a very readable survey of the state of the debate. The paper:

'...looks primarily at how SCHR agencies consider relations with armed forces in situations of armed conflict, or natural disasters taking place in contested environments. This paper contributes to the current debate on humanitarian-military relations and fosters a better understanding of the respective roles and the necessity for humanitarian actors to commit to the positions elaborated herein. It is intended to inform and guide the internal policies and practical guidance of SCHR agencies.'

Read more on Reliefweb.

UPDATED 01.02.10 Afghanistan: The London Conference and Yemen meeting

This post will be updated as new news comes in.

• 01.02.10: Final bit of analysis from Daniel Gerstle at Change.org
• 01.02.10: Afghan women urge NATO to remain in Afghanistan long enough to ensure that the Karzai administration will not fall to the Taleban
  
• 01.02.10: Fuller statement from the UK Government now available on Reliefweb.
  
• 28.01.10: Analysis and predictions of a new settlement which will bring the Taleban into government in Afghanistan. Much disquiet from human rights groups and other commentators at the prospect of rehabilitating perpetrators of human rights abuses.
  
• 27.01.10: Reuters reports on the Yemen meeting today, apparently hastily called after a Yemen-based terrorist group claimed responsibility for the failed Christmas US plane bomb. Apparently:

Wednesday's meeting, which brings together the Group of Eight world powers, Yemen's neighbors in the Gulf Cooperation Council, as well as Egypt, Jordan and Turkey, is designed to give a strong signal of support to Yemen, while pushing for economic development and reform. The European Union, United Nations, World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) will also be represented.

Given the attendees and stated focus, this seems a very Washington Consensus approach - no sign that the plight of the displaced in Yemen will be discussed.


• 27.01.10: Seven NGOs reiterate the negative impact of the militarisation of aid in Afghanistan and urge the London Conference to rethink the increasing tendency of international foreign policy to link development and security activities
  
• 27.01.10: ICRC urges all parties to work to minimise the impact of conflict in Afghanistan on civilians
  
• 26.01.10: IRIN: Humanitarian aid is not something the military can do
  
• 26.01.10: ICRC describes Yemen as 'a serious humanitarian crisis in the making'
  
• 25.01.10: Don't forget Yemen - an additional meeting will be held on Wednesday. Alertnet looks at possible outcomes of both conferences.
  
• 25.01.10: Reuters reports on the draft communique on the future of Afghanistan which includes 'a "framework" for turning the country's security over to Afghan forces' beginning this year, commits Afghanistan to setting up 'an organization to "reach out to insurgents," and the international community to ...channeling more of their aid through the Afghan government and providing debt relief to Kabul.'

BAAG conference on Afghanistan

Ahead of the London Conference on Afghanistan on the 28th January, the British Agencies in Afghanistan Group held a one-day conference at Canada House on the 26th January to contribute an Afghan perspective. Invited speakers included Afghan NGO staff, MPs, and activists, as well as UK-based experts and NGO speakers. Discussions broadly focussed on security and government, although several speakers raised the rights and voices of Afghan women, strikingly absent from the London Conference photo-call. Video from the conference is still to come. Daniel Gerstle of Change.org reflected on a day that had seen nothing very new announced or debated, and asked fellow attendees for concrete recommendations.

Sierra Leone supplies security contractors to Iraq

A report that a British PSC is employing ex-combatants from Sierra Leone in Iraq on a salary of $250 a month plus free training, room and board - just under ten times what they would earn at home but a fraction of the salary a Western security worker can command in Iraq, which can be in the region of $100k.

Haiti analysis round-up for Monday 25th January

There is such a lot now coming out of blogs and commentators that I thought rounding them up would be more useful.

• One piece of news: a useful summary of today's meeting in Montreal of governments involved in the response.

Below are more technical pieces from the humanitarian blogosphere (and yes I did just use that phrase). Enjoy:

• Quite a bit of comment on the Lancet article condemning the aid effort as self-serving and uncoordinated. Michael Keizer agrees that some points have a grain of truth, albeit unsupported by evidence, (the comments repay the reading on this one); Alanna Shaikh (humanitarian uber-blogger with a big following) weighs in; Brendan Gormley is covered in a Guardian profile following the very strong DEC response to the article; and a frazzled response straight from Haiti here.
  
• Dan Smith of International Alert looks at what's next for Haiti, recovery and the humanitarian caseload and the IntLawGrrls look at future administration possibilities
  
• Paul Currion argues that reinventing Haiti really means reinventing the systems in which the country exists, as well as internal infrastructure
  
• Peter Daou asks why we can't mobilise the same outpouring of aid and compassion for comparable numbers of people affected by sexual violence in the Congo
• Newsweek gives a view on the historical background to the earthquake in Haiti
  
• An old hand expresses disappointment with the media coverage of the response
  
• And an absolutely fascinating bit of advice for the military supporting the operation from a retired Marine Corps officer - sample quote:
  

'Your job is to try to get Haiti back to something approaching the way it was seconds before the quake struck. If the President wants you to do nation-building, he’ll let you know.'

Haiti: Civil-military round-up

An awful lot coming out of news and policy analysis about the extent of military involvement in the relief effort in Haiti. Watch this space for more, but in the meantime here is a round up of some good links:

• The MoD deploys a Navy Royal Fleet Auxiliary supply ship loaded with aid
• USAID stopped US soldiers from handing out food directly to people in Haiti, I'm sure with the best of intentions including sticking to the Oslo Guidelines, but it didn't come off well here
• Reflections on Sri Lanka's global role in peacekeeping and relief from Change.org
• An excellent and very useful list of news on military engagement in relief in Haiti which I hope will continue to be updated: Chris Albon's website

Wall St Journal: on the ICRC negotiating UN access to children in Afghanistan

International Committee of the Red Cross, the only international organization that maintains regular communications with the Taliban command, acts as an intermediary every time a new letter of support is issued. That happened 10 times in 2009, each time a new vaccination campaign was launched.

Dr. Mir of the WHO says he decided to ask the International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC, for assistance after watching how that organization facilitated talks between the South Korean government and the Taliban that led to the freeing of 23 Korean hostages kidnapped by the insurgents in July 2007.

...Afghan insurgents generally respect the ICRC's neutrality, unlike their counterparts in Iraq, who blew up the organization's Baghdad headquarters in October 2003. The ICRC maintains first-aid posts in some Taliban-held parts of the country and runs special taxi-ambulance services that evacuate wounded Taliban fighters from the battlefield as well as Afghan civilians caught in the crossfire.

Read more on the WSJ website.

Meanwhile, a new intelligence report proposes that analysts should focus on deep analysis of local social and political structures in Afghanistan:

He also calls for a complete culture change in the intelligence community which will see them forgoing their much loved Power Point slides for "meaty, comprehensive descriptions of pivotal districts throughout the country" produced on word processors.

"Analysts must absorb information with the thoroughness of historians, organise it with the skill of librarians, and disseminate it with the zeal of journalists," the report says.

Read more on the Guardian website.

ODI-HPN: Humanitarian Exchange no 44, featuring 'The Crisis in the West Bank and Gaza'

The latest Humanitarian Exchange (no 44, September 2009) from the Humanitarian Practice Network of the Overseas Development Institute features a series of articles on the current situation in the occupied Palestine territories, and on the impact of the barrier and the closure system.

Rolf Holmboe, Denmark’s representative to the Palestinian Authority, describes his government’s programme to enable municipalities to provide basic services and support community development. Other articles look at UNDP’s efforts to help individuals and communities to reclaim their agency and dignity, the hidden crisis of displacement, the impact of human rights group B’Tselem’s distribution of video cameras to Palestinian civilians and a community based child protection programme instigated by Save the Children.

Articles in the policy and practice section include an examination of civil–military relations in natural disasters, methods for measuring the socio-economic impact of post-disaster shelter programmes and the challenges of emergency nutrition programming in Eritrea. Others focus on a new decision-making tool for use in complex humanitarian environments, the question of whether chronic conflict and recurrent disasters exacerbate social divisions or strengthen cohesion, the ways in which the media influence charitable giving and the lessons learned from the deployment of UN and EU hybrid protection forces in Chad.

Harvard IHL: Humanitarian access and security in the OPT - a dialogue with practitioners

There is a new topic on the ALNAP forum which may be of interest for people researching access and movement issues in conflict zones. Harvard University commissioned last year a project under the title "An exchange of practitioner perspectives on humanitarian access and security concerns in the OPT".

In this project, a recently retired officer of the IDF and the Country Director of CARE International in West Bank and Gaza present their views on contemporary challenges to humanitarian access. The authors have engaged

in a direct dialogue on the most recent issues plaguing humanitarian access and security, specifically concerns with access to the Gaza Strip and cooperation between humanitarian practitioners and security forces on the ground.

HPG policy brief: a clash of principles in Pakistan?

A new policy brief of the Humanitarian Practice Group (HPG) discusses the response of the humanitarian community in Pakistan and assesses the dilemma between sticking to a principled approach and supporting the government's efforts to rebuild stability in the country. The fight against the Taliban invokes more military and political responses of the government, often overriding the humanitarian principles.

Aid agencies are faced with the dilemma of engaging with and supporting government efforts to promote stability or maintaining a principled approach. Their added value in promoting stability is not clear and their influence over these processes is likely to be mixed. A principled approach will be limiting in terms of influencing domestic policy and gaining access. Resolving or managing these dilemmas will require strategic decision-making based on context analysis and strong leadership.
Irrespective of the approach adopted, advocacy has a significant role to play in ensuring adherence to International Humanitarian Law in the conduct of hostilities, that there is sufficient humanitarian funding and that efforts to promote stability ensure that the needs of the most vulnerable are met, and that political and security considerations do not override the humanitarian imperative.

HPN/Reuters: Afghanistan

In issue 43 of the Humanitarian Exchange Magazine, Jon Bennett writes about the the Britain Afghanistan policy and future expectations for the latter country. Recently, this policy has moved towards a strategy of stabilisation, linking DfID, MoD and the Foreign Office in a mutual strategy of engagement, stabilisation and development, aimed at bridging the counterinsurgency and the "Afghanisation" of the country's future.

More recent information on Afghanistan on the Civil-Military Relations blog:
Terrorism kills more Afghan civilians than any other military action - next to Afghan civilians, also international aid workers have been the target of increased terrorist attacks in the country. This raises many concerns in the light of the upcoming presidential elections on 20 August.
Cost of insecurity in Afghanistan impedes humanitarian work - humanitarian organisations diverge in their approach in dealing with the increased insecurity in the country, with the ICRC firmly avoiding armed escorts and demonstrating its impartial credentials and emblem.

A new pressrelease by Reuters tells about Karzai's plans in his election manifesto to regulate foreign troops in Afghanistan:

Afghan President Hamid Karzai , setting out his election manifesto, has vowed to make foreign troops sign a framework governing how they operate in a bid to limit civilian casualties. Karzai, widely criticised this week for withdrawing from a televised debate with two of his main rivals in the Aug. 20 presidential election, has unveiled a manifesto covering foreign troops, talks with insurgents and reconstruction. Civilian casualties caused by U.S. and NATO operations, particularly air strikes, have become a source of increasing outrage among ordinary Afghans and their leaders this year, even as insurgent violence hit its worst levels in the eight-year-old war.

More about this in the extended blog entry.
In issue 43 of the Humanitarian Exchange Magazine, Jon Bennett writes about the the Britain Afghanistan policy and future expectations for the latter country.

Recently, this policy has moved towards a strategy of stabilisation, linking DfID, MoD and the Foreign Office in a mutual strategy of engagement, stabilisation and development, aimed at bridging the counterinsurgency and the "Afghanisation" of the country's future.

It has been difficult for aid agencies and DFID to focus on reconstruction and development when access to populations is largely determined by which areas are ‘secured’ by British and Afghan military forces. Development here requires longer timeframes and a more sophisticated form of interaction with target beneficiaries. It is also difficult to find technical experts willing to stay on the ground for any length of time in a highly volatile and dangerous environment.

Also, there are two separate foreign military forces present on the ground - the Coalition Forces and the NATO/ISAF operation forces. However distinct, the public does not make a distinction between the two and their actions affect each other, potentially affecting the acceptance of their actions (and, concomitantly, of the aid agencies affiliated to them or operating under their protection). In reaction, several international aid agencies have expressed their desire to decouple aid delivery from military goals and refused to be any longer part of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams.

Further complicating these matters is a general lack of coherency between the major donors, lack of legitimacy of the central government and the fact that in the country as a whole, the lack of good national or provincial data and security constraints on access to beneficiaries impede an accurate assessment of project progress.

Here are some excerpts from the latest news items posted on the Civil-Military Relations blog.

13 July 2009: Terrorism kills more Afghan civilians than any other military action.

Recent violence has also targeted those trying to help the fledgling democracy rebuild. Last month three national staff members of a local non-governmental organization (NGO) were killed when the vehicle they were travelling in was destroyed by a roadside bomb in Jawzjan province. In addition, the office of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Kunduz was attacked in early June with a rocket-propelled grenade having been fired at the compound.
The ongoing violence is of particular concern as the country gears up for presidential elections slated for 20 August. The Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Afghanistan and head of UNAMA, Kai Eide, has highlighted the critical importance of the upcoming polls, noting that it is about more than choosing the country’s future leaders.

14 July 2009: Cost of insecurity in Afghanistan impedes humanitarian work.

While large swathes of the country, mostly in the south and east, are no-go zones for most agencies, the increasing use of armoured vehicles, barricaded compounds and restrictions on movement have also had an impact on operations in relatively safe areas, such as Kabul, where many organizations recommend armoured vehicles for their staff. [...]
However, some organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) prefer not to use them. “Armoured vehicles are both expensive and inconsistent with the nature of our work,” Patrick Hamilton, deputy head of the ICRC delegation, told IRIN, adding that the organisation was more inclined to seek security guarantees for its staff and activities through negotiations with warring parties and host communities. However, the ICRC’s modus operandi is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for other aid agencies to replicate, specialists say. [...]
The ICRC says it will continue avoiding armed escorts and demonstrating its impartial credentials and emblem. “We seek security through local acceptance and support,” said Hamilton. Others, including Donini, advise aid agencies to negotiate a “humanitarian consensus” with all warring parties and neighbouring countries as the UN did in the 1980 and 1990s. “Immediate steps should be taken to build a relationship of trust with all parties to the conflict,” said Donini.

UK: MoD Strategic Defence Review outlined

On July 07, the Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth announced that a process for undertaking a Strategic Defence Review in the next parliament has been set out.

The purpose is to examine, among others, the lessons learned from recent operations; the changing character of conflict; the requirements on and aspirations of the British Armed Forces.

For some reflections on this announcement, see Charlie Edwards on the Global Dashboard.

Tufts: Afghanistan: Humanitarianism under Threat

by Antonio Donini

This briefing paper is an update of a 2006 study on perceptions of humanitarian action in Afghanistan, which was part of the Humanitarian Agenda 2015 research program. The paper highlights critical issues affecting the provision of humanitarian action and suggests how they could, at least partially, be redressed.

Building on data collected through interviews in the aid community as well as with ordinary Afghans, the briefing paper finds that humanitarianism is under deep threat in Afghanistan because of the perceived association of aid agencies with the US-led intervention. Humanitarian actors and the principles they profess are under attack. The ability of humanitarian agencies to address urgent need is compromised by internal and external factors, i.e., both by the organization and modus operandi of aid agencies on the ground, and by an extremely volatile and dangerous operating environment.

The aid community in Afghanistan faces severe challenges that need to be urgently addressed so that civilians in need can be protected and assisted and the credibility of the humanitarian enterprise restored. Opportunities for more principled humanitarian action, by separating or insulating it from political and military agendas, should not be missed. Failure to do so will have dire consequences for Afghans and for the future of humanitarianism worldwide.

View or download the report from the Tufts website.

MSF: Dialogue 7: Co-operation with Private Security and Military Companies

In this report, Marc DuBois (MSF), Dr. Dominick Donald (Aegis Research and Intelligence), Nick Downie (Save the Children), and Dr. Kevin O’Brien (Alesia PSI Consultants), consider the emerging role of PMSCs in humanitarian operations; the need for an effective regulatory and accountability framework; and PMSCs in Iraq and the security challenges facing humanitarian organizations.

Download the report from the MSF website.

'Eroding humanitarian principles: Who's to blame?'

By Samir Elhawary, Humanitarian Policy Group at ODI

This article is in response an earlier article expressing serious concern at current UN humanitarian reforms that seek to enhance coordination among humanitarian agencies and establish more effective funding mechanisms for emergencies, which views these latest reforms as an attempt to further align political, military and aid objectives.
Access the original article via Humanitarian Practice Network
Access the response via Humanitarian Practice Network

A recent article by members of the well known humanitarian agency Medecins sans Frontieres (MSF) expressed serious concern at current UN humanitarian reforms that seek to enhance coordination among humanitarian agencies and establish more effective funding mechanisms for emergencies. It views these latest reforms as an attempt to further align political, military and aid objectives. This, they argue, blurs the lines between political and humanitarian action, fostering an environment that isn’t conducive to upholding the core humanitarian principles of independence, impartiality and neutrality. These principles are understood as vital to ensuring access to affected populations and the security of aid workers.

Reform of the institutional framework to enhance strategic coordination isn’t new, as the authors acknowledge. It’s part of a trend since the mid-1990s that seeks to achieve greater coherence among humanitarian, development, military, diplomatic and commercial interventions. This attempt to bridge aid and politics stems from the general acceptance among Western states – especially since 9/11 – that ineffective or failed states can no longer be ignored or simply provided with relief. The thinking is that instability creates fertile grounds for radicalisation which, in tern, poses severe threats to the liberal democratic world.

Afghanistan and Iraq are some of the most recent interventions that are symptomatic of this trend, and the places in which aid workers have expressed most concern over their ability to operate. In fact, in 2004 MSF pulled out of Afghanistan after several of its aid workers were killed. This would tend to reinforce concerns that greater coherence and the consequent blurring between political and humanitarian interventions are eroding humanitarian principles and hindering the ability of aid workers to save lives.

However, while the evidence suggests that there has been a loss of ‘humanitarian space’, two qualifications need to be made. Firstly, as emphasised recently by Laura Hammond, increasing attacks on aid workers are more likely to be due to the considerable benefits that can be gained by those who carry out the attacks – namely, massive publicity which can be used to promote a particular message – rather than because of any erosion of principles. Attacking aid workers can also be a way to send a powerful message in terms of showing military prowess and, in effect, become a strategy of war.

Secondly, apart from those organisations that espouse a relatively strict adherence to principles of independence and neutrality, some agencies have started to actively take sides, supporting what they perceive as ‘good’ political objectives in their advocacy campaigns; such as calling for intervention in Darfur. Others have pursued a development or social justice agenda that seeks to transform the societies they engage in through ‘conflict resolution’, ‘recovery’, ‘reconstruction’ and ‘peace-building’ interventions. In such a context, talk of neutrality makes little sense. There is a need to move away from the current tendency to solely blame the role of the ‘system’ and/or other political/military actors and emphasise the fact that it is often the agencies themselves that are the prime drivers in politicising aid.

These trends raise important questions with regard to the relevance of applying humanitarian principles in the current environment. Should agencies pull out, reject funds or suspend activities if they feel the principles are being overly compromised? Or is there a case for enhanced coherence between political and humanitarian objectives in order to support the long term welfare of these societies – and perhaps also their security in the shorter-term? Until such dilemmas are resolved we will continue to see a humanitarian enterprise that is deeply divided.

Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining report on Mine Action

The publication is intended particularly for States and their armed forces, but also for international and non-governmental organisations involved in explosive ordnance disposal, risk education or assistance to the victims. This first edition, which takes into account decisions reached at the First Meeting of States Parties to Protocol V in November 2007, reflects the legal obligations laid down by Protocol V on ERW and the non-legally-binding technical annex. Written in a straightforward style, it is intended simply to give guidance in a complex area of endeavour, based on best practice and lessons from the last 15 years of mine action. We hope that it will prove a useful resource to everyone concerned with the consequences of explosive remnants of war.

Access the report from ReliefWeb

HPG Policy Brief 30: Humanitarian Action in Iraq: Putting the pieces together

Five years on from the invasion of Iraq by Coalition forces and the situation for civilians in the country is dire. Humanitarian personnel attempting to provide relief and protection have faced huge challenges and risks due to insecurity, restricted access and logistical difficulties. This has led to a fragmented response.

This latest Policy Brief explores the key constraints to principled humanitarian action in Iraq, and questions whether the international community is ready to address these issues as it prepares to scale up humanitarian action in 2008.

The Policy Brief is available to download from the HPG website.

Drawing on interviews with a range of individuals and organisations currently working in Iraq, its key messages are as follows:

• International humanitarian action in Iraq since 2003 has been inadequate to the nature and scale of the task. It has been piecemeal and largely conducted undercover, hindered by insecurity, a lack of coordinated funding, limited operational capacity and patchy information.

• As humanitarian agencies look to scale up interventions in 2008, most of the earlier challenges to providing assistance in Iraq - political, institutional and operational - continue to exist.

• More concerted action is possible in Iraq, but there is a problematic lack of consensus on needs and on the scope for safe access. Needs in Iraq vary widely between different area and the absence of information systems that are up-to-date and accurate has hampered humanitarian action.

• Humanitarian action is neither a tool of nor a substitute for political action so the humanitarian community needs to draw clearer lines between its role and that of political and military actors. Blurring these distinctions compromises access to relief and the safety of local and international aid workers.

• There is an urgent need to establish a common humanitarian agenda in Iraq and to re-assert a clear humanitarian identity. This demands that agencies establish the means to agree a shared assessment of needs and analysis. It also requires a re-affirmation of humanitarian principles as a basis of a new compact with civil society and Iraqi communities.

Guidelines for Relations between U.S. Armed Forces and Non-Governmental Humanitarian Organizations in Hostile or Potentially Hostile Environments

Interaction is promoting a new set of Guidelines which hope to servie as "rules of the road" for civil-military operations in peace operations. Although firmly centred on US agencies and the US military, they make interesting reading.

Facilitated by the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Guidelines seek to mitigate frictions between military and NGO personnel over the preservation of humanitarian space in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Principles in the Guidelines include ensuring that military personnel wear uniforms when conducting relief activities to avoid being mistaken for nongovernmental humanitarian organization representatives. Conversely, it recommends that, to the extent practical, humanitarian relief personnel avoid traveling in U.S. Armed Forces vehicles with the exception of liaison personnel.

The document is available for download from the Reliefweb website (402KB pdf).