Texts and Reports
- Development Policy and the Armed Forces - Speeches and Issues Notes
Issues
Note
Ron
Keller
Director-General
DG International Co-operation (DGIS)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands
It is an honour
for me to address you during this conference on development policy and
the armed forces. In my view, the organizers could not have picked a
more suitable city for discussing this theme. We all know how much this
city has suffered from political and military tensions. And look at
it today: it is a vibrant city flourishing in a stable and secure environment.
Not only does this city therefore represent the link between security
and development, but its development also illustrates the need for close
co-operation between all branches of government in order to stimulate
economic and social progress. Nowhere in Europe has the destruction
by military power been so complete and the combined civil-military effort
to rebuild a city been so strong. Some areas, like the restructuring
of the army, police and border control structures needed military expertise.
Other areas needed civilian expertise. The resurrection of Berlin was
due to such a joint, integrated approach.
However, we are
not here to dwell on the beauties of the city of Berlin, but to discuss
the challenges in those areas of the world that are both poverty stricken
and recovering from conflicts. I mention in this respect countries such
as Afghanistan, Sudan, the DRC and Burundi. All of these countries are
in dire need of peace and stability for badly needed sustainable reconstruction
to take shape. To this end, joint planning and implementation of security-related
and other activities are of vital importance in order to address all
aspects of the reconstruction agenda thoroughly.
Not so long ago,
relations between development workers and soldiers were characterized
by suspicion, yes even hostility. Fortunately, interaction between the
two has become increasingly pragmatic and realistic. One could say that
their relationship is maturing. Mature professional relationships are
based upon mutual respect, rationality of tasks, and complementarity.
This implies an approach, whereby each partner does what it can do best.
In the Netherlands,
the awareness of the need to achieve this mature balance between rationalization
of tasks and complementarity of efforts has grown slowly but surely
in the last few years. No doubt, the simultaneous involvement of the
Dutch development community and the military in places like Afghanistan
and Macedonia stimulated this search for an integrated approach. Rational
integration rather than forced segregation between military and development
activities will help us in becoming more effective in our efforts for
sustainable reconstruction of Sudan and Burundi.
Complementarity
To tackle complex
post-conflict situations the Netherlands is of the opinion that long-term,
integrated multidisciplinary engagement is needed. Both the armed forces
and civil branches of government should jointly be planning and implementing
activities aimed at creating peace and stability. A case in point is
Security Sector Reform: issues relating to governance, accountability
and transparency and the challenge of furthering democratic control
of the armed forces can benefit from decades of lessons learned in development
cooperation work. At the same time, it will be difficult, if not impossible
to achieve meaningful reform, without actual 'hands-on' involvement
of military personnel in co-operation with military from the recipient
country. Our military often speak a similar language and can, for example,
indicate how effectiveness and efficiency of the security sector can
go hand in hand with governance and accountability. The complementarity
is evident.
The need to combine
military and civil expertise in Security Sector Reform has led the Netherlands
Government to investigate how these forms of expertise can be pooled
in an inter-ministerial operational structure. Although the exercise
is still in its fact-finding phase, early indications are that we can
learn a lot from our friends in the United Kingdom. In the UK, pool
funding, joint planning and joint implementation by multi-departmental
Defence Advisory Teams seem to have led to good operational results
in Sierra Leone.
Complementarity
does not only play a role at national level; it is also relevant at
the international level. The Netherlands will never try to implement
Security Sector Reform on its own. The subject matter is too sensitive
politically and too complex technically: international co-ordination
is essential. Many international organizations, like the UN, EU and
NATO have significant SSR capacities or are in the process of creating
these. Where possible, for the sake of legitimacy, these organizations
should even take the lead in the reform exercise, with member states
playing a following role. However, the usefulness of most organizations
is hampered by geographical limitations (NATO) or by a too limited mandate
for army reform (UN). Therefore, sometimes, a strong bilateral or plurilateral
engagement (at the request of the host government) cannot be ruled out.
Naturally, should this occur, a UN mandate or endorsement of this engagement
will be very important as this organization is the only body that can
bestow legitimacy on these kind of operations.
Rationalization
As I just stated,
ideally, we should establish a close working relationship between the
development community and the military, based on the principle of national
and international complementarity. This means that for purposes of poverty
reduction and development in conflict-related situations, we shall often
have to rely on active engagement by the military. However, the priorities
of the military may not always be similar to those of the development
community. For example, African conflicts may not carry the same weight
for our ministries of defence as conflicts that are directly related
to the war on terrorism. How can we influence the setting of priorities-
in such a way that post-conflict reconstruction in developing countries
becomes a priority for these ministries?
One way of doing
this is by developing an integrated policy framework, and by building
inter-ministerial pools and other structures. These would enhance the
insight that effective management of complex conflict situations requires
that the development and security sectors cooperate in an integrated
way. Priority setting then logically has to be done at a higher political
level integrating the two sectors, for instance in Cabinets of Ministers.
Effective conflict policies will require increased funding, both from
development funds and from security budgets, in other words both ODA
and non-ODA funds.
It is in this context that the Netherlands seeks to address inconsistencies
in international ODA norms that stand in the way of a truly integrated
approach to achieve sustainable development in post-conflict countries.
Why, for example, do these rules allow activities aimed at the reform
of the police to be considered ODA, while the same is not applicable
to the army? We all know the importance of a stable and well governed
security sector for peace and stability in any country. And surely if
we want both the police and the army to be able to execute their respective
mandates and roles - the provision of internal versus external security
under transparent and democratic control - should we not work with both
institutions to achieve this? If the army is part of the problem, should
it then not be part of the solution too?
Mutual respect
Neither complementarity,
nor rationalization can be achieved without a third element, being mutual
respect. Only if the relationship between the development community
and the military at national level is based on mutual respect, can an
integrated approach materialize. Only if discussions amongst donors
are based on mutual respect, can we achieve progress in rationalization
and complementarity. The recent discussions in Paris on ODA-eligibility
showed the willingness to have constructive debates in this field, based
on such respect. I want to ensure you that the Netherlands listens very
carefully to the viewpoints of other donors. We fully respect differing
opinions and understand that each partner has its own arguments for
or against our concept of rationalization. We cannot and do not wish
to impose our viewpoints on our friends.
Ladies and Gentlemen.
In my expose I have tried to shed some light on current thinking within
my Government on rationalization of tasks between development and defence
actors. Also I elaborated upon the concept of complementarity, and the
need for close cooperation between departments and between international
partners in the area of Security Sector Reform.
We are convinced that we are on the right track in improving our approach
to aid in the establishment of peace and stability in post-conflict
countries. However, the topic of joint planning and an integrated approach
is still relatively new. We have a lot to learn from you, our international
partners. Your insights will lead us to better approaches to post-conflict
situations. Hopefully, we can plan and implement these approaches jointly
with you. We need it, but the "Berlins" of this world deserve
it.
|
Contents