NGOs, IGOs and Other International Organizations in Afghanistan - Research Paper Example

? NGOs, IGOs, and other international organizations in Afghanistan Lecturer: Humanitarian assistance save the lives of many civilians caught in violent conflicts; however, it sometimes fails to save the lives of many others as it sometimes exacerbates the drivers of conflicts which humanitarian assistance seek to address. To reduce the inefficiency and unintended consequences of aid efforts, observers call for improved coordination among humanitarian and military organizations.1 The relationship between humanitarian organizations and military forces is contentious at the operational level since the military coalition was a belligerent during the war following the combat. In many crises where the US military gets involved, USAID offers a communication link between military and humanitarian agencies.2 However, in Afghanistan security concerns hindered AID initially because the communication link was not available since NGO workers complained that soldiers encroached in their domain by engaging in humanitarian work instead of offering security. In Afghanistan, the US army placed Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) of roughly 100 military combat personnel and extra civil affairs personnel in districts across the nation. These teams created military presence in remote areas thus offering limited security while aiding to respond to the needs of the people in the country, while the US forces withdrew from urban areas. Despite the shift, three years later violence in the country noticeably increased resulting in increased attacks targeting the civilians. The afghan Taliban forces increased their attacks against NATO, the country’s troops and increasingly engaged in suicide bombings targeting the military and civilians. 3 Despite the different perspectives, interdependence between international organizations, NGOs, donor organizations and the military is apparent and is a result of overlapping tasks and inadequate resources available in mission areas. Therefore, military and civil operations influence one another in all levels thus the risk of counteracting one another. Nevertheless, successfully integrated civilian and military efforts in complex emergencies are crucial to flourishing relief efforts and reconstruction; although, there is a risk of humanitarian organizations being associated with potentially unwelcome military force thus losing their protective gloss of neutrality. Many humanitarian organizations focus on delivering humanitarian help in on going conflict thus integration is deeply objectionable therefore, they easily interact with military forces. In disrupted societies like Afghanistan, with huge dysfunctional authorities and continuous hostilities make the conditions for fruitful civil-military cooperation poor.4 Despite problems caused by military involvement in assisting civilians, other coordination efforts like UN agencies and NGOs were successful in working together. The World Food Program reportedly delivered enormous amount of food in 2001 and credited its staff, donors and NGO implementing partners. However, the political future of Afghanistan may be in limbo, the humanitarian outcome of American-led war and subsequent relief effort could be termed as a success with regard to the number of people served, quality of service and health of the population. Moreover, access to people in need increased because of the fresh political conditions after the defeat of the Taliban. As well, the amount and diversity of services offered in many regions of the nation increased like health and nutritional status for many people improved and many Afghans returned to their homes. The success was due to the humanitarian infrastructure established prior to 2001 and other things happening at the administrative level like provision of copious resources, specialization in organizations and the high level of connectivity. 5 Nevertheless, there were differences evident in operational levels where humanitarian and military organizations overlapped or did not communicate, which could have undermined the level of trust that had been built over years between the organizations and the civilians. NGOs that traditionally acted on the interests of the victims of humanitarian crisis could not avoid being part of the new ‘great game’. Recent changes in aid modalities, development policy and the integration of military and humanitarian brought additional players like private security companies. Thus, this result in blurring of boundaries linking the different actors hence, posing various challenges and dilemmas regarding the legitimacy of NGOs and their ability to work impartially, be neutral and maintain independence. In Afghanistan, NGOs expressed concern since the humanitarian space, which relies on upholding those principles, is shrinking because, the access to those in need gets constrained by conditions prevailing on the ground. The US-led invasion to defeat the Taliban saw international military involvement in internal conflict aimed at regime change, which moved the military from “support ally” to “full partner” in humanitarian effort; thus, the military encroached into the space previously considered as the responsibility of NGOs. Through PRTs, the military engaged in security and reconstruction, support to central government and restricted relief operations, which is a preferred policy for dealing with post-conflict situations in security and reconstruction operations in Afghanistan. 6 Encroachment in space considered the responsibility of NGOs generated intense debate and concern, especially in Afghan context. The concern of NGOs is PRTs distorted the line between civilian and military action thus compromised NGO neutrality hence influencing their ability to access communities that needed aid.7 Prevailing discussions in Afghanistan regarding the participation of the US military in charitable activities often fails to distinguish various types of interactions that happen. For instance, humanitarian action performed in insecure environment can intensify violence thus endangering civilians; thus, the identity of aid givers – military or humanitarian – is not essential compared to security as a requirement for providing aid. 8 The US military attempted aid work by offering logistical support to humanitarian emergencies than the past, which often incurred disapproval from NGOs and Afghan locals. The nature of warfare promotes misuse of aid and assaults targeting aid workers because combatants increasingly target civilians and aid workers instead of enlisting their support. Therefore, radically different cultures and assumptions resulted in clashes between military and humanitarian organizations; even though, the security forces helped aid organizations access territories previously inaccessible because of Taliban control. Nevertheless, civilians believe involvement of military in humanitarian aid negatively affect humanitarian organizations since they compromise the core value of humanitarian organizations like neutrality, independence and impartiality . Bibliography Lischer, Sarah Kenyon. "Military Intervention And The Humanitarian "Force Multiplier." Global Governance 13.1 (2007): 99-118. Lopez, Andrea M. "Engaging Or Withdrawing, Winning Or Losing? The Contradictions Of Counterinsurgency Policy In Afghanistan And Iraq." Third World Quarterly 28.2 (2007): 245-260. Seybolt, Taylor B. "Harmonizing The Humanitarian Aid Network: Adaptive Change In A Complex System." International Studies Quarterly 53.4 (2009): 1027-1050. Shannon, Roisin. "Playing With Principles In An Era Of Securitized Aid: Negotiating Humanitarian Space In Post-9/11 Afghanistan." Progress In Development Studies 9.1 (2009): 15-36. Sirp J. de Boer, et al. "Inter-Organisational Communication In Civil–Military Cooperation During Complex Emergencies: A Case Study In Afghanistan." Disasters 33.3 (2009): 412-435. Read More