Militarization of Humanitarian Activities - Essay Example

Militarization of Humanitarian Activities Militarization of Humanitarian Activities Introduction In several occasions, the military has been involved in the direct provision of humanitarian aid alongside other aid workers (Clarke, 2006). The presence of the military in war zones attracts mixed reactions from humanitarian agencies, political leaders, and militants. Their presence has both positive and negative effects, but generally the military affects aid provision activities by humanitarian agencies negatively. Their activities include neutralizing terrorist groups, security provision for aid workers, reconstructing destroyed areas, and gathering intelligence about militia groups. Military activities are usually politically driven, and they follow the strategies laid out by their governments. On the other hand, aid organizations operate under impartiality and neutrality, but they rely on the military for security and provisions such as transportation. This affects their impartiality and neutrality since they might engage in some politically oriented missions. In the past, NGO workers have been used to gather intelligence for the military, which affects their functionality (Weiss, 1999). The government utilizes humanitarian relief aid to woo the local residents to provide information about the militants. In Iraq and Afghanistan, this strategy has been used to gather information regarding the Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants (Aidan, 2010). Definition Humanitarian aid can be defined as logical assistance, medical assistance, and food supplies to people caught up in a humanitarian crisis such as war or natural disaster. Several countries in the third world such as Congo, Sierra Leone, Syria, and Libya have experienced internal war due to political instability. The affected population in these regions requires protection and assistance, which is mostly provided by NGOs along military organizations such as NATO, United Nations, and African Union. Today’s conflicts disregard human life as well as the values of tolerance and human dignity, and the general population is usually targeted by warlords. The main aim of humanitarian aid is to assist every person without discrimination, respect human dignity, and pursue no other interest. In areas where the military is involved, some affected groups may be locked out due to political reasons. The military may also influence the process of aid provision depending on the cooperation by the locals. This cooperation gauged in terms of information the military receives from local residents regarding militant groups in the region. The Military and security provision The involvement of the military in aid activities provides aid workers with security and repulses any attacks from militants. Humanitarian organizations rely on the military for the safety and security of their staff and to get access to affected populations (Aidan, 2010). With improved security, NGO workers are able to access and operate in areas controlled by militants. In most countries experiencing armed conflict, rebel fighters drive out aid workers from areas under their control. In this case, the military is required to help NGOs gain access to civilians in the battle field or transport civilians from the battle field to relief camps. In some countries, aid workers are kidnapped, and the military is used for their rescue. The presence of the military gives humanitarian agencies absolute access to several areas controlled by militants. The international humanitarian law distinguishes between combatants and non-combatants in a war and aims at protecting the latter from attacks. This makes it necessary to have military personnel in aid provision in order to protect civilians from attacks by militants. However, there arises a conflict between the military and NGOs due to the contention of the humanitarian space. This is the environment in which NGOs discharge their aid responsibilities governed by impartiality, neutrality, and humanity. The inclusion of the military for security provision interferes with aid activities by NGOs. Humanitarian agencies have to operate within the military program due to their reliance on security. This denies the NGOs the freedom to engage in activities at their own will or as per their programs. Military forces usually act in support of one party involved in the conflict. In Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S and allied forces were against Taliban rebels who were fighting against the government. In Libya, NATO forces were in support of rebels who were trying to overthrow the dictatorial leadership of Muammar Gaddafi. This affects the impartiality and neutrality of NGOs and makes them partisan in the conflict. Hidden motives in military humanitarian interventions harm the image of humanitarian organizations, which hampers the delivery of aid and protection activities. According to Christopher (2011), humanitarian organizations work under neutrality and avoid taking any sides during the provision of aid. The integration of the military in aid provision hinders neutrality of these organizations. The military distributes relief aid in a way that suits their political ambitions. This forces humanitarian agencies to partner with the military in aid programs. Taking sides during aid distribution is a conflict of the humanitarian law and may cause misunderstanding between the military and humanitarian aid leaders (Rieff, 1999). Humanitarian workers have been attacked in some cases due to political stances taken by military workers in war torn countries. Rebel fighters in Iraq, Congo, and Sierra Leone have captured several humanitarian workers in retaliation to political sides taken by military peace keepers (Lischer, 2007). Civilian Groups Military interventions can also involve civilian groups in aid provisions as part of rebuilding the country and reducing the impact of war on civilians. These groups are also incorporated alongside humanitarian aid workers as a way of increasing their efficiency. UN mandated interventions have incorporated civilian groups in several countries. The UNAMA in Afghanistan, UNAMI in Iraq, and UNMIK in Kosovo are civilian organizations incorporated within military forces in these countries. This is seen as an act to win the hearts of the local population affected by the war. In most cases, humanitarian agencies do not include civilian groups in their initial programs. However, due to the involvement of the military, they have to oblige to the use of civilian groups. These groups are familiar with most parts of the country, and make NGO workers more efficient in aid provision. Members of these groups are at times former militants who are familiar with the operations and hideout areas of the militia groups. Militants also interact with civilians in these areas, and they may provide them access to civilians requiring assistance. However, civilian groups are alienated to particular political parties or militant groups controlling a particular area. The humanitarian agencies are, therefore, forced to collaborate with one party in the conflict or a regional organization operating in the country. This happens against their mandate to remain neutral and impartial during aid provision. In Liberia, humanitarian agencies had to rely on ECOMOG in 2003 for security, transport, and communication. These events reverse the relationship between the humanitarian actors and parties involved in the conflict. This involvement in controversial arrangements requires the formulation of guidelines governing decisions agreed upon in the arrangement. This is an invasion of the activities of aid agencies and the humanitarian groups are usually locked up in conflicts with military officials. Humanitarian agencies as force multipliers The military involves humanitarian organizations as a force multiplier for their political ambitions (Lischer, 2007). The humanitarian assistance is used as part of their strategic plan and humanitarian organizations fulfill military and political goals of their government. In most cases, the government recruits and sponsors humanitarian aid NGOs before engaging in attacks against other countries. This is part of the military strategy to provide assistance to civilians injured or displaced by the war. For example in 2003, the USAID recruited NGOs to provide aid for civilians before the military invaded Iraq. The overlap between the military and humanitarian spheres is responsible for increasing friction between the two players. Military planners incorporate humanitarian activities into their strategy to increase their chances of success in the war. These intentions encourage misuse of humanitarian activities and aid workers are increasingly targeted by combatants. In 2003, a deadly suicide attack occurred at the Red Cross headquarters in Baghdad (Lischer, 2007). Combatants target local civilians and aid workers due to their involvement in military activities. The humanitarian groups are considered to be politically motivated similarly to the military. This has changed the way NGOs used to operate in the battle fields. In the 1990s, UNHCR field personnel attended to refugees on the fringes of war when they reached in the second country. This is not possible in the current war situations due to the entanglement between aid and military workers. The inclusion of the military has led to the death of about 320 humanitarian workers between 1997 and 2005 (Campbell and Campbell, 2012) Humanitarian agencies have to remain neutral and impartial, but have to cooperate with the military for provisions and government support. In most cases, the government recruits NGOs with which they have had good relations in the past. Their incorporation and partnership with the military gives them government approval, and they receive assistance from the government (Clarke, 2006). This helps them provide assistance to large numbers of affected civilians several months or years due to continued support from the government. Some NGOs operate in war countries for a few months or years due to lack of resources. However, humanitarian agencies that cooperate with the government and help them pass their strategies have a continuous supply of resources from the government or partnering governments. The direct participation by the military in aid provision also hastens the delivery process. This makes NGOs more effective and enables them attend to large numbers of civilians (Lischer, 2007). Political alienation and post-war reconstruction The use of the military does not necessarily have to deal with forceful intervention or have a political motive. The military has been involved in aid provision and civilian assistance missions that do not involve the use of force or have a political ambition. In 2000, the US Air Force was deployed to Mozambique to assist flood victims. The rescue mission did not include any use of force and was regarded to as strictly humanitarian. The military also participated in Rwanda in 1994 to assist humanitarian agencies handle the massive flow of refugees fleeing the genocide. During such crisis, aid agencies rely on military planes for transport, and logistical expertise to handle the influx of refugees. These interventions bolster humanitarian conditions and security for affected civilians. In Kosovo, NATO forces were involved in airlifting relief aid and injured civilians from the war zones to refugee camps. The military managed the initial refugee crisis before aid agencies such as UNHCR prepared their aid programs. Humanitarian agencies and the military cooperate in humanitarian activities where they share a common purpose. Tension arises when the military is driven by political and other goals such as the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The partnership between NGOs and the military is mostly politically motivated, and aid agencies are perceived to be political players in the conflict (Campbell and Campbell, 2012). The participation of NGOs in these countries may facilitate military interventions. Aid organizations ease the impact of war on civilians and the government may undertake military intervention with the assurance that NGOs will minimize civilian suffering. Humanitarian organizations operating in these regions make military interventions more palatable by providing assistance to affected civilians. The preparation of relief activities by humanitarian agencies may serve as approval of military activities (Aidan, 2010). The UN declined to participate in relief efforts in Iraq to distance itself from approval of US/UK invasion. The government provides funds and other support to humanitarian organizations to facilitate their activities in these areas, while it continues with military attacks. Several western NGOs have a bias towards liberal ideals of economic freedom and human rights. They champion for social liberalism based on the well being and worth of human beings. This is a stand that is not common with the military or political groups involved in the conflict. NGOs are involved in post war reconstructions of affected areas through the provision of resources and skilled labor. The military also sets up teams to help reconstruct destroyed towns, cities, and villages. After defeating the Taliban government, the US military created Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These teams were responsible for conducting humanitarian reconstruction projects in the country. The teams constituted of soldiers, aid workers, and local civilian officers. The military helps NGOs in the reconstruction process through funding, labor, security, and other provisions. Humanitarian groups are viewed as part of the military team, which attracts attacks from militants (Lischer, 2007). The involvement of military in humanitarian activities has created divisions between aid workers operating in these regions. NGOs such as CARE have called on ISAF to expand its reach to other regions in Afghanistan and increase training activities on Afghan security agencies. MSF rejects expansion of ISAF following the death of its workers in Afghanistan. The different stands taken by different aid groups affect their relationship with the military. However, most aid organizations cooperate with each other amid different stands on military activities in humanitarian processes. Humanitarian have different views regarding military participation in aid provision, but help develop projects that are involved in promoting peace in affected areas. In Iraq, the USAID was responsible for overseeing economic development programs in the country. These programs were taken over by the pentagon at the onset of the 2003 war. They acted as an integral strategy for the success of military activities in the country. This caused tension between the government and aid organizations and led to the replacement of the program head (Aidan, 2010). Attacks on humanitarian agencies The main disadvantage of militarization of aid provision is continuous attacks by militant groups. Humanitarian agencies are considered as political groups and sympathizers of the military activities. This makes militants target NGOs operating in war countries and those believed to have close ties with the military. These attacks force NGOs to abandon their activities and withdraw from these countries or keep off some regions. In Iraq and Afghanistan, several aid organizations including the Red Cross have terminated their activities due to attacks on their personnel. Most organizations are forced to remove identification labels from their vehicles and offices. The remaining agencies have adopted anonymity for their activities to reduce attention from the Taliban forces and avoid more attacks. Publicity in humanitarian activities is used for fundraising for aid activities. Humanitarian agencies emblazon logos on t-shirts, banners, vehicles, offices, and provisions. The resolution to operate anonymously has affected the efficiency of these organizations due to limited public participation and funds. Some agencies have resolved to abandon their humanitarian activities in these areas. The handover of power to the Iraqi transitional government caused an exodus of several aid organizations (Lischer, 2007). Misuse of Aid Activities Military planners view poverty alleviation as a strategy to combat terrorism. The participation of military personnel in humanitarian activities is viewed as a counter-terrorism strategy in Afghanistan (Clarke, 2006). The US military participates in other development projects in remote villages in east Africa to build support for the US government. Military officers in these areas do not wear uniforms or display their weapons in order to conceal their weapons. Humanitarian workers in these regions are forced to participate in surveillance for terrorist activities, which is against their mandate. The military uses the goodwill power of donor organizations to extend their activities and pacify the hostile communities in these regions. The military entices local population using relief aid and empowers the local community to build a relationship conducive for sharing information. Favoring certain communities or regions during aid provision is against the principles of humanitarian organizations. This creates contempt for aid workers in communities that have been overlooked in the development process (Lischer, 2007). Government funding for humanitarian agencies NGOs collaborating with the government receive substantial amounts of funds from government agencies. These funds supplement the budgets of these NGOs making it easy to participate in overseas aid provision missions. These missions require large budgets since they help millions of civilians for long periods of time. Government funding forces these agencies to collaborate with other government organs present in these countries especially the military. In 2003, CARE received funds from the government that financed over 50 percent of its budget. The IRC held close ties with the US government during the cold war and drew most of its funds from the government (Weiss, 1999). Humanitarian agencies function as an unofficial arm of the government therefore creating a force multiplier effect. This happens even in the absence of close ties between humanitarian agencies, the military and other interveners. The government closely monitors the activities of humanitarian organizations and participates in their coordination and recruitment processes. The government closely monitors the activities of humanitarian organizations and participates in their coordination and recruitment processes. The recruited NGOs receive funding from the government for their activities. This creates a tie between the government and the NGO, and the latter fails to operate independently. They have to participate in government agendas, and this makes part of the political ambition. However, some humanitarian agencies decline government contracts and work independently in war countries. The New York-based IRC refused government contracts in Iraq that would tie its activities closely to the agenda of the government (Lischer, 2007). These agencies draw their funds from independent donors and are therefore able to remain neutral and impartial in their mission. Such measures help them relate well with all parties involved in the conflict and are not subject to government manipulation. Humanitarian agencies as intelligence facilitators The involvement of NGOs in military activities facilitates the flow of intelligence between different organizations. Humanitarian agencies cover several areas in countries such as Iraq and serve as intelligence agencies for the military and other government agencies. Civilians interact with NGO workers freely and they provide vital information to them. This information is then passed to the military and is used to combat militia groups in the country. On the other hand, NGOs also act as reporters on human rights situations and other controversial interventions by the military. The military, in some cases, uses excessive force on civilians and militants captured during raids. NGOs in these areas act as human rights watchdogs and report any injustices committed by the military. Collaboration between western and Muslim NGOs Western NGOs have resorted to partnerships with Muslim NGOs in Iraq and Afghanistan due to continued attacks on their workers. Muslim NGOs are perceived to be neutral by militants in these countries and face fewer threats compared to western organizations. An example of a Muslim NGO is the Muslim Hands based in Britain but recruits Iraqi citizens as their staff (Christopher, 2011). These NGOs do not collaborate with the military and are able to conduct aid activities without fear of attacks by militants. This group has continued with its humanitarian activities in Iraq even after several international groups have terminated their activities. Partnering with these groups eliminates or reduces the presence of western workers in these countries. These partnerships have negative impacts on fundraising efforts but are more efficient than the physical presence of western workers. International aid agencies can utilize Muslim groups to provide humanitarian aid with reduced security effects. The current insecure and unstable situations in Iraq and Afghanistan present western aid organizations with difficult choices, which can only be resolved through partnerships with Muslim groups. Conclusion Humanitarian organizations strive to remain neutral when carrying out charity, but this does not protect its aid workers. This forces NGOs to seek protection from the local security forces or militant groups operating in these regions. Humanitarian organizations factor security threats in their planning process irrespective of their political implications. These organizations enlist private security forces in regions where local security forces are inadequate or too political. Private security forces accompany aid workers in war torn countries as a strategy to remain neutral and minimize security threats. However, these agencies may be inadequate and, NGOs are forced to withdraw temporarily until the security situations in these countries stabilize. Several organizations have withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan due to insecurity against their workers. This withdrawal poses a risk to displaced civilians who require food and medical assistance. Collaborating with local security forces or hiring private security firms can act as a remedy to this situation. Militarization of humanitarian efforts affects the principles of impartiality, independence, and neutrality governing humanitarian organizations. These organizations require funding from the government, and are forced to cooperate with the military. Humanitarian workers require security, which is provided by the local security forces or military officers from their government. These partnerships compromise the original mission of aid agencies, and they adopt policies form their government. Adopted policies make them partners to the political ambitions of the government, and they are viewed as allies of the government by militants in these countries. Relief workers rely on the military for transportation and communication making it hard to separate themselves from military activities. These collaborations attract funding from the government and hatred from those opposing the invasion. Humanitarian agencies function as force multipliers for government activities by providing information and attending to affected civilians. References Aidan, H. 2010. Introduction: Humanitarian Intervention in Contemporary International Relations. Humanitarian Intervention: An Introduction. Palgrave MacMillan. pp. 1-8.  Campbell, J. J., and Campbell, N. E. 2012. Peace education and the adult learner: educational trends in a globalized world. Lanham, Md, University Press of America. Christopher, M. 2011. Humanitarian logistics: meeting the challenge of preparing for and responding to disasters. London, Kogan Page. Clarke, M. 2006. Aid in conflict. New York, Nova Science Publishers. Lischer, K. S. 2007. Military Intervention and the Humanitarian “Force Multiplier”. Global Governance, 13, 99-118. Rieff, D. 1999. Moral Imperatives and Political Realities: Response to Principles, Politics, and Humanitarian Action. Ethics & International Affairs, 13, pp. 35-42.  Weiss, T. 1999. Principles, Politics and Humanitarian Action. Ethics & International Affairs, 13(1), pp. 1-22.  Read More