| |
Contributions from
the Column
Monitor
Peacekeeping: No reason to fear of civilian-military cooperation
BMZ budget increases
USA approves Indian three-in-one AIDS pill
D+C author under pressure in Togo
Genetic modifications: Uganda: in search of pest-resistent bananas
Liberia: timber embargo lifted
UN budget released
German government assesses crisis-prevention policy
Gender-related violence: Good governance includes protection for women
A single roof for GTZ and KfW
Poor countries lack tax revenues
8-9/2006
|
|
[ Peacekeeping ]
No reason to fear civil-military cooperation
Civil aid agencies in conflict regions should cooperate more closely with international military on peacekeeping missions. As a matter of principle, fear of contact with soldiers prevails in many headquarters of aid organisations, but that attitude is not appropriate, states a group of Dutch researchers in a recent study they prepared for the Dutch non-governmental aid agency Cordaid. According to them, aid workers often take a far more pragmatic approach in the crisis regions proper, cooperating with the military according to needs and opportunities as they arise. This approach does not increase the risk of aid workers being dragged into violent conflict, the experts discovered when scrutinising civil-military cooperation in Afghanistan and Liberia.
NGO employees were interviewed in both countries. According to their estimates, there was no direct link between aid agencies being at risk and cooperation with the troops of ISAF (Afghanistan) and UNMIL (Liberia). “It is doubtful that Liberian rebels manage to keep an accurate record of agencies that do collaborate with UNMIL and agencies that do not,” maintains the study. Among aid workers in the field, the view prevailed that the risks associated with delivering humanitarian aid in conflict regions were due to the general lack of security, but had little to do with how closely they were in touch with the military.
Generally speaking, local NGOs in Afghanistan and Liberia professed a more open-minded approach towards soldiers than foreign agencies did. This is largely due to pragmatic reasons. NGOs from rich countries are more often able to afford to insist on their independence from military missions. But many local organisations also have a different understanding of humanitarian aid. It does not matter so much to them whether aid is provided by civilians or soldiers. Foreign agencies, on the other hand, often cling to the principle of neutral, non-political aid, which they feel is threatened when engaging too closely with the military. However, the authors ask whether such “pure aid” really ever existed.
Moreover, the international NGO’s scepticism towards the military is based on the assertion that the local people react friendlier towards civilians than towards soldiers. However, the Cordaid study draws a different conclusion: in Afghanistan and Liberia, ISAF and UNMIL are generally held in higher regard than the many international aid agencies, which are often reproached for their lack of transparency, wastefulness and their failure to keep promises. The study claims that it is not only the troops that have to win the hearts and minds of the people; NGOs must do so too.
The authors concede that engagement in Afghanistan, especially in the south, is more dangerous than in Liberia for both soldiers and civilian aid workers. They argue that this is due to a crucial difference between the two missions. The peace deal and the UN mission in Liberia were for the most part agreed on by local actors, even though they went along with international diplomacy. The Afghanistan mission, on the other hand, resulted from the US-led invasion in 2001/2002 and the victory of certain Afghan fractions over other local forces.
In practice, civil-military cooperation in both countries shows many deficiencies. There is no thought-through division of labour, even less so in Afghanistan than in Liberia, where civilian aid workers and soldiers operate under the shared umbrella of UNMIL. Sometimes, military missions carry out their own civil projects to improve their standing with the local people. From a developmental perspective, however, these projects are often of rather dubious value, the Cordaid team states. It recommends that civilian agencies and the military become better prepared for joint missions and intensify their cooperation, not only in the regions of operation but also at home. Such steps would reduce prejudices and fear of collaboration, which, in turn, would improve performance in the field. (ell)
On the Internet:
http://www.cordaid.nl
|
