What does cooperation between peacekeeping forces and aid agencies entail in practice? This report from Cordaid considers civil-military relations, with a focus on Afghanistan and Liberia. It aims to assist policymakers and practitioners in developing adequate strategies. Closer interaction between military and civil actors is a logical consequence of current developments in the international arena and humanitarian and development sector. Aid agencies, donors and the military need to remain aware of these contextual developments and to reflect on their implications.
The study highlights the changing nature of contemporary conflict and the concomitant changes in the humanitarian, military and development domains. Donor governments and military actors generally have welcomed and encouraged closer collaboration in the framework of their integrated policies. However, important humanitarian and development actors have raised concerns about compromising the humanitarian imperative and the associated humanitarian principles of impartiality, independence and neutrality.
In Afghanistan and Liberia, the aid scene has become chaotic, with a massive number of agencies and limited coordination. In both countries, the military has provided assistance that could be provided by non-governmental organisations (NGOs), yet there are so many needs that NGO efforts are by no means sufficient.
- In both countries, a rather extensive set of civil-military coordination mechanisms has emerged, though in many cases the talking does not actually lead to adjustments on the ground.
- Dialogue, mutual training and exchanging information provide opportunities for collaboration, but some of these efforts are somewhat disappointing in practice.
- A distinction between humanitarian and development aid is no longer clear; humanitarian principles are not necessarily seen as neutral; there is tension between humanitarian principles and the principle of local ownership.
- For many, it matters little to them who provides assistance. Many NGOs are censured for being uncommitted, untrustworthy and ineffective.
- Local NGOs and some international NGO staff working at field level tend to be open to collaboration – they feel a principled stance is a luxury that only the richer organisations can afford.
In a general sense, the dictum ‘as civilian as possible, as military as necessary’ is sound, but in practice, better use could be made of the advantages on each side. Among donor governments, more efforts are required to transcend the mantra on the virtues of an integrated approach and deal with the challenges that it entails:
- Given that neither the opportunities nor the risks of civil-military collaboration can be taken for granted, a context specific, case-by-case approach is advocated.
- Mutual training and exposure between aid workers and the military – not just in the field, but at home as well – would benefit future interventions.
- Policymakers and practitioners need to rethink classical humanitarian principles, whether to apply them in today’s contexts, and how.
- Insufficient thought has been given to the issue of local ownership. Troops and aid workers need to reflect on a less instrumentalist vision on local involvement.
- NGOs should reconsider the costs and benefits of their divided standpoints and explore new opportunities to take a common stance.
- Aid agencies need to attune their positioning more closely to the perceptions among local communities about the military and if they do not, they need to make clearer efforts to explain their positions.
