This report addresses Afghan concerns and unpacks some of the commonly held assumptions about Afghan engagement with and within the main areas of the civil-military (civmil) debate. It provides an evidence base for advocating to donors, policymakers and the military for assistance that can be appropriately, safely and effectively implemented in Afghanistan.
The report also presents NGOs with an analysis of the characteristics of insecurity and conflict in Afghanistan and assesses concerns regarding ‘blurring the lines’ or other impacts on the future of programmes and the safety of staff and beneficiaries. It finally explores and conveys the perspectives of local populations on security and development issues.
Key findings:
- Afghans have been introduced to many foreign concepts, and have adopted those that suit local pragmatism. The terminology of the civmil debate is largely alien to them: they struggle to see the value of articulating their experiences, though they are dealing with the reality of interactions between civilians and military as best they can. The civmil debate has not surfaced in the Afghan policy environment; this means that the government is pursuing aims which may jeopardise not only NGO operational space but humanitarian space, too.
- While underdevelopment is a major contributor to the current situation in Afghanistan, it is not necessarily a root cause of the lack of government credibility at subnational level. Many Afghans see the development-security linkage as artificial and contrived and the governance-security linkage as a critical part of stabilisation. The development of a strong army and stable and capable police force is an important part of state building and most agree that an international military presence at provincial level is critical for security and stability for the time being. In general, Afghans feel that they are on a very uneven playing field in deciding the nature of military engagement in their sovereign territory.
- The Afghan context has become a maze of pathways that shift with alarming speed. The range of actors and at times conflicting perspectives on how to keep and provide security means that every situation has to be scrutinised through a multiplicity of lenses. Identity management increasingly becomes a conscious choice, while security and insecurity both provide lucrative business opportunities for a wide range of actors. It is difficult for the military to keep a distinction between its various functions, and this has implications for organisations that choose to come in contact with it. While the military may be able to provide assistance in insecure circumstances, this is often tainted by their other activities. NGOs cannot soften or eliminate such perceptions by acting as conduits or proxies for assistance channelled through the military.
- The situation for humanitarians and development practitioners is continuously changing. Their operational space is continually shrinking as Armed Opposition Groups (AOGs) spread fear and expand their influence. NGOs face a number of challenges and are developing a range of strategies and practices to handle them. Success for a few organisations in negotiating access might raise hopes, but without the possibility of conducting such research with AOGs – some of whom have tolerated but not welcomed NGOs in the past – it would be unwise to suggest that organisations should risk rapprochement in order to broaden their area of operations at present.
