Impact of Militarisation of Humanitarian Assistance on Humanitarian Agencies - Essay Example

Impact of militarisation of Humanitarian assistance on how humanitarian agencies carry out their role in conflict affected countries : Instructor: Course Code: Introduction Over the past decade, since the September 11 attacks, there have been rising concerns and arguments that humanitarian assistance has increasingly been militarised (Denney, 2012: 29). This recent trend in the integration of humanitarian efforts with the military either in post conflict reconstruction or distribution of aid have raised a lot of question as to the impact that such militarisation of humanitarian assistance has on the space and role of humanitarian agencies in the conflicted countries. Jessen-Petersen (2011: 1) argues humanitarianism is in a crisis with humanitarian action in most parts increasingly being used as a selective tool for the powerful hence failing to live up to its principles as well as “protection and restoration of the dignity of human life” (pp. 1). This, he attributes to the militarisation and politicisation of humanitarian assistance which has grossly impacted the effectiveness of such humanitarian efforts and increasingly put the life of the aid workers at risk. A recent example of military involvement in humanitarian efforts is the Haiti experience where in the aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the first humanitarian response was the deployment of the United States and Canadian military troops in the region to distribute foreign aid and help in disaster relief efforts. Mennonite Central Committee (2011) in Haiti were particularly concerned as to the mission of foreign troops in the land taking account that the military may not be as effective as professional relief agencies in delivering aid to areas most needed (pp. 1). Other areas where militarisation of humanitarian assistance has been noted in the recent past include Kosovo, Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan. With such trends rising, this paper investigates the impact that militarisation of Humanitarian Assistance has on the way in which humanitarian agencies carry out their role in conflict affected countries. The paper first defines what militarisation of humanitarian assistance is all about, clearly evaluating how humanitarian space is being invaded by the military force. It will then engage the key debates and concepts concerning militarisation of humanitarian assistance both from those who support it and those who do not. These debates are mainly from an ethical and moral view point as humanitarian assistance is inherently guided by moral values. Finally, the paper analyses the role of humanitarian agencies in conflict affected countries linking theory and practice, taking into account militarisation of humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian space and the military Militarisation of humanitarian assistance refers to the involvement of the military forces in delivering relief aid in affected areas. This may either include the involvement of the military in providing security and safety to the aid workers to ensure their safety and security (Bessler and Seki, 2006:4-5), or may include the direct involvement of the military in provision of foreign aid where they may work independently or side by side with the humanitarian agencies (Mennonite Central Committee, 2011; Bessler and Seki, 2006:5). Maintaining a distinction between military troops and the humanitarian workers who are non military has always been known to a vital element in the preservation of the “humanitarian space”- a space or environment where aid workers can complete their aid duties safely and effectively while adhering to the core humanitarian principles of impartiality, neutrality and humanity (Bessler and Seki, 2006:5; Meharg, 2007:2). Since the 19th century, humanitarians have based their activities and policies in a space protected by humanitarian principles of impartiality, neutrality, humanity and independence. It is these principles that have guided the very essence of humanitarian work and space over the past century in disaster stricken and armed conflict areas. Though humanitarian groups may not be homogenous they are all guided with tenets of humanitarianisms and ICRC of the Humanitarian Charter codes of conduct where the recipients of aid assistance are considered equal regardless of sectarian, political or polemical affiliations (Meharg, 2007:2). This implies therefore that humanitarians must always avoid being seen or perceived as taking sides in a conflict. However, increased involvement of military forces in humanitarian assistance and other similar activities under the pretext of reconstruction and stabilisation has placed the tenets of humanitarianism in crisis and dilemma. The participation of military who may not be aware of the principles that govern humanitarian space or pay heed to the consequences of their presence and actions, has increasingly shifted the humanitarian efforts from one which is governed by principles of neutrality, impartiality, humanity and independence, to diluted principles (Meharg, 2007). The involvement of military forces in stabilising and reconstructing conflicted areas through humanitarian-like activities has put humanitarian efforts and principles at a crossroads. Key debates and concepts concerning militarisation of humanitarian assistance As noted above, the recent trend in the expansion of military activities into ‘operations other than war’ and into more humanitarian-like activities in conflicted areas has led to the argument that increasingly the humanitarian actions are being militarised. McHugh and Gestelow (2004) show that contributing government such as the UK, US, Canadian or French among others, have increasing sent their military forces in conflicted areas such as Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, and Iraq among other areas to perform “humanitarian and reconstruction” tasks. Whether this may be part of government’s strategy such as part of a counter-insurgency tactic, a tactic to win the hearts and minds of the locals or as security forces in development, such military involvement has waged arguments in favour and against (Bessler and Seki, 2006). Most notably, military critics of such military involvement note that military involvement in humanitarian activities, for which they have no expertise diminish their combat effectiveness (Bessler and Seki, 2006; Donini, Minear, & Walker, 2004). Humanitarian critics on the other hand note that military involvement in humanitarian activities diminish the perception and image of humanitarian activities and hence hamper effective delivery of relief as well as place humanitarian worker in danger of attacks. Those who support military involvement argue that military engagement and involvement is an essential and continued holistic evolution in military doctrine towards a focus of ‘peace’ rather than ‘war’ (Bessler and Seki, 2006:2). While the military may aspire to abide to the humanitarian principles of neutrality and impartiality, as agents of government or inter-governmental alliances and policies, they are not obliged to adhere to the humanitarian principles but rather hold the titles of peacekeepers (Pugh, 1998: 341). Divisions in the debate of military involvement in aid work as well as well as the effect that they have on humanitarian activities is affected areas have been addressed both from a deontological view point as well as political view point. The case for and against militarisation of Humanitarian assistance The case against military involvement in humanitarian activities is mainly based on deontological views that military actions are inherently political in nature and often has sides in a conflict while humanitarian efforts are inherently morally autonomous and free from any political impositions (Pugh, 1998:341). In most cases, it has been argued that using military force in the pretext of protection of humanitarian relief efforts has often been used as an excuse of military intervention in countries. Such views and perceptions hurt the humanitarian programmes in conflict regions due to suspicion especially among the rebelling parties as to the real motives of the humanitarian workers (Donini, Minear, & Walker, 2004:193). This more than endangers the lives of the humanitarian workers in such regions. Woodward (2001:331) on the other hand argues that the uniformed presence of the military can be counterproductive in relief efforts as the locals either resent it and rather view it as foreign imposition rather than humanitarian effort. This compromises such humanitarian efforts and makes it even harder for the humanitarian activity to adhere to the humanitarian principles and Bettati and Koucher’s proposed concept of aid rights: “the duty to provide assistance and the right to receive it” (cited in Pugh, 1998:341). Furthermore, an argument against military involvement in humanitarian activities is based on their suitability for such tasks. The comparative advantage of the military forces in any conflict torn area is in keeping and maintain peace. Their culture, ethos, expertise and the very essence is designed to accomplish political objectives, rather than humanitarian. Indeed Coyne, (2011:4) notes that military participation in humanitarian efforts is often motivated by political actions or goodwill rather than from humanitarian impulses. This from a moral perspective is not effective in building trust with the local population as well as building the long term capacity of such local populations for relief and regeneration. The argument for military involvement in humanitarian actions is often based on the argument that military involvement often defends the core humanitarian values, where armed protection prevents human suffering for innocent in conflict regions. Furthermore, military actions ensure a safer environment from which humanitarian workers can distribute relief. Others such as Roberts (1996) argue that humanitarian and military cultures have some similarities where both of them share in the ‘nobility’ saving life, selflessness and loyalty. Peacekeeping mission always include activities which may be described as humanitarian in nature such as providing disaster relief with impartiality. Irrespective of whatever argument is made as to the involvement of the military in humanitarian aid, the real impacts in their involvements and the manner in which they affect humanitarian work in conflicted regions is what really defines how right such military interventions are in humanitarian assistance. So far anecdotal evidence provide by a number of scholars show that militarisation of humanitarian aid has had a more negative impact on the way in which humanitarian agencies carry out their role in conflict affected countries than positive (Vayrynen, 1999: 172; Bellamy 2003:499). Illustrated below are the effects on militarisation of aid on humanitarian activities in conflicted regions. Impact of militarisation of Humanitarian Assistance on humanitarian efforts Militarised humanitarian operations in conflict areas such as Kosovo, Uganda, Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan over the past two decades have put to test the very essence of humanitarian principles, with the clear line between humanitarian and military actions increasingly becoming blurred (Schweiss and Rowe, 2007; Ramsbotham and Woodhouse, 1996). This has resulted to such principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence increasingly becoming diluted, confused and in most instances disregarded. Military involvement in humanitarian activity in most conflict areas have been cited to have unclear objectives, such as one in Yugoslavia, militarised humanitarian operations that target one side of a conflict such as one in Iraq and Afghanistan, or lack of international mandate that define such military involvement (Jessen-Petersen, 2011). The core observable effects of militarisation of humanitarian assistance on humanitarian efforts are: Humanitarian perceived as part of a political operation or strategy In conflict torn areas, militarised humanitarian efforts more often has a higher risk of being perceived to taking sides. Even in cases where humanitarian agencies are working their best to be impartial and neutral, rebels or other groups caught up in a conflict may consider a militarised humanitarian operation that is not on their side as automatically against their side and therefore working against them. Whatever the case, in areas such as Iraq or Afghanistan, humanitarian workers working hand in hand with the military have huge risks of being perceived to be part of a political agenda or operation (Wertheim, 2010:151). In certain cases, for instance in Afghanistan, where civilians are killed in military operations, humanitarian agencies become further exposed to risks of being seen to take sides, and the local populations find it difficult to understand how a humanitarian assistance in a region can result to killing on one side while aid is offered on the other. Such occurrences are especially exploited insurgency groups to show that humanitarian agencies have capacity to remain neutral and impartial, and are rather military and political actors in such conflicted regions (Jessen-Petersen, 2011: 4). Endangering of humanitarian workers lives With increased militarisation of humanitarian assistance so has the killings of humanitarian workers increased. Over the past seven years killings of humanitarian workers who were perceived to be part of military forces or foreign governments have more than doubled across the globe in conflict torn areas. The United Nations humanitarian agencies are especially at a higher risk. This is because an action from one arm of the UN against an unfriendly government or rebels may be translated by the conflicting parties as part of the decision of the UN humanitarian agencies, even though the various arms of the UN and act on their own (Jessen-Petersen, 2011: 4). For instance the indictment of President Bashir of Sudan by the International criminal court which part of the UN, resulted to most political and rebel groups in the country take it out on UN humanitarian staff working in those regions. More often, the humanitarian workers are a softer target than the peacekeepers, and therefore lumping together the humanitarian groups with the military groups blurs the distinctions to warring factions. A shift towards military operation with humanitarian support rather than humanitarian operation with military support To the rising risk of attack on humanitarian workers, the humanitarian operation has shifted being military operation with humanitarian support rather than humanitarian support with military support. This is mainly due to the high level of involvement of the military forces in the humanitarian operations. As can be noted from Haitian experience, where the first humanitarian response was the deployment of the United States and Canadian military troops in the region to distribute foreign aid and help in disaster relief efforts (Mennonite Central Committee, 2011). This experience shows that the humanitarian staffs are increasingly becoming military troops rather than professional humanitarian staff. While military support is essential in ensuring safety and security of the humanitarian operations, extensive military involvement has an adverse impact on such operations. Humanitarian critics have noted that military involvement in humanitarian activities diminish the perception and image of humanitarian activities and hence hamper effective delivery of relief as well as place humanitarian worker in danger of attacks (Bessler and Seki, 2006:2). Reduced access to population in dire need of humanitarian assistance Militarised humanitarian assistance has increasingly been associated to be part of counter insurgency strategies, which makes the affected populations to associate humanitarian agencies with certain military and political goals. This heightens insecurity for aid agencies thereby making it difficult for humanitarian agencies to access the populations that are in dire need of aid. It therefore becomes difficult for humanitarian agencies in such areas to carry out their work in ensuring that all the affected population are able to get the need assistance (Denney, 2012:36). In addition, the involvement of the military in aid provision has skewed the areas in which aid are allocated within a country. For instance, in the Afghanistan conflict, the UK and US aid was mainly distributed in areas where there was intense conflict as a way of winning the minds and heart of the people in such regions (Denney, 2012:36). Research though shows that in such regions, aid has the least impact due to instability of the regions, especially with regard to development (Eoresti, Denney, and Metcalfe, 2011:3). Rising integration of security and development matters Development and security have long been considered to be different areas with differing goals and objectives as well as means of attaining such goals (Denney, 2012:29). However, the increased militarisation of humanitarian assistance has increasingly integrated these two, with most of the development aid often used as a strategy and means in meeting security goals. Way (2010) notes that over the recent past aid assistance have evolved into an instrument used to enforce neoliberal policies especially in conflict areas. This can be evidenced with the various aid requirements that are often set forth donors either to humanitarian agencies or to the recipient country. Such integration reduces the effectiveness of the aid support and the development for which such assistance was meant for. To work alongside military force or not to is a huge dilemma to most humanitarian organisations. A decision to remain in region when humanitarian principles have been compromised by military or political agendas puts at risk the long term integrity of humanitarian activities. On the other hand a decision to withdraw from such areas places the population in dire need of humanitarian assistance at an even greater risk and danger. Jessen-Petersen (2011:7) argues that it is imperative for humanitarian organisations to salvage the core humanitarian principles and consistently defend when such principles are not respected. A number of humanitarian organisations such as Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) and ICRC have strongly been against militarisation of humanitarian assistance with these organisations pulling out in areas where humanitarian principles are not respected. For instance ICRC temporarily withdraws from Iraq due to militarised humanitarian actions (Jessen-Petersen, 2011). Humanitarians play an important role in providing assistance and aid in conflict regions. However, they often find themselves having to share the same geographic and mission space with military forces. This may lead to complementarity or at times competition which impacts the humanitarian organisation ability to complete their work without jeopardising their neutrality, nor being perceived to belong to a larger politicised body (Meharg, 2007; Okros, and Keizer, 2007). In most instances, the intervention models adopted by the humanitarian agencies have are often western oriented yet applied in a non western geographic area. Civil-military relations theory clears shows that relations among the civilians and the military are different in various areas. Therefore getting to understand such relations is critical in identifying effective models to apply in humanitarian intervention in various regions (Mychajlyszyn, 2007). Conclusion This paper sought to investigate the impact that militarisation of Humanitarian Assistance has on humanitarian agencies and the way they carry out their role in conflict affected regions. From the analysis, a number of impacts of military involvement in humanitarian activities can be noted. Militarised humanitarian efforts more often has a higher risk of being perceived to taking sides. In areas such as Iraq or Afghanistan, humanitarian workers working hand in hand with the military have huge risks of being perceived to be part of a political agenda or operation. Furthermore, with increased militarisation of humanitarian assistance so has the killings of humanitarian workers increased. Over the past seven years killings of humanitarian workers who were perceived to be part of military forces or foreign governments have more than doubled across the globe in conflict torn areas. This has been attributed to blurring distinctions between aid workers and military forces. Another impact is that humanitarian operations have increasingly shifted to being military operation with humanitarian support rather than humanitarian support with military support. This is noted in increased military activities in humanitarian efforts. Military involvement in humanitarian activities also diminishes the perception and image of humanitarian activities and hence hampers effective delivery of relief as well as place humanitarian worker in danger of attacks. This heightens insecurity for aid agencies thereby making it difficult for humanitarian agencies to access the populations that are in dire need of aid. However, when working in conflict area, aid agencies often find themselves having to share the same geographic and mission space with military forces. Therefore, the intervention models adopted by the humanitarian agencies need be based on the civil-military relations prevalent in a region. In addition, the humanitarian agencies need to ensure that humanitarian principles are consistently defended when such principles are not respected in areas where they operate. References Bellamy, AJ 2003, Power, rules and argument: new approaches to humanitarian intervention 1, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 57, 3, p. 499. Bessler, M and Seki, K 2006, ‘Civil-Military Relations in Armed Conflicts: A Humanitarian Perspective’, Liaison – A journal of Civil-Military Humanitarian Collaborations, 3, 3, pp. 4-10. Coyne, CJ 2011, ‘The Political Economy of the Creeping Militarisation of US Foreign Policy Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, 17, 1 / 4, pp. 1-25 Denney, L 2012, The Militarisation of Foreign Aid, Contemporary Review, 294, 1704, pp. 29-38, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 19 July 2012 Donini, A, Minear, L, & Walker, P 2004, The Future of Humanitarian Action: Mapping the Implications of Iraq and Other Recent Crises, Disasters, 28, 2, pp. 190-204. Eoresti, M, Denney, L, and Metcalfe, V 2011, Security, Humanitarian Action and Development: Navigating a shared space for international engagement in fragile states, Briefing Paper, Overseas Development Institute, viewed 19 July 2012 at: Jessen-Petersen, S 2011, ‘Humanitarian in Crisis,’ Special Report 273, United States Institute of Peace. McHugh, G and Gestelow, L 2004, ‘Provincial Reconstruction Teams and Humanitarian-Military Relations in Afghanistan’, Save the Children, viewed 19 July 2012 at: Meharg, SJ 2007, ‘Helping Hands & Loaded Arms: Navigating the military and Humanitarian Space,’ Clementsport, Nova Scotia, The Canadian Peacekeeping Press. Mennonite Central Committee 2011, ‘Militarisation of Aid,’ Mennonite Central Committee, viewed 19 July 2012 at: Mychajlyszyn, N 2007, ‘Putting Policy into Practise: Integrating Post Conflict Operations,’ in Meharg, SJ, Helping Hands & Loaded Arms: Navigating the military and Humanitarian Space, Clementsport, Nova Scotia, The Canadian Peacekeeping Press. Okros, A and Keizer, W 2007, ‘Humanitarianism as a Profession,’ in Meharg, SJ, Helping Hands & Loaded Arms: Navigating The military and Humanitarian Space, Clementsport, Nova Scotia, The Canadian Peacekeeping Press. Pugh, M 1998, ‘Military Intervention and Humanitarian Action: Trends and Issues,’ Disasters, 22, 4, pp. 339-351 Ramsbotham, O and Woodhouse, T 1996, ‘Humanitarian Intervention in Contemporary Conflict: A Reconceptualization,’ Policy Press, Cambridge. Roberts, A 1996, ‘Humanitarian Action in War. Aid, Protection and Impartiality in a Policy Vacuum,’ Adelphi Paper 305, Oxford University Press/IISS, Oxford Schweiss, CM and Rowe, J 2007, ‘Irreconciliation Differences? Emerging US Military Doctrine and Humanitarian Space,’ in Meharg, SJ, Helping Hands & Loaded Arms: Navigating the military and Humanitarian Space, Clementsport, Nova Scotia, The Canadian Peacekeeping Press. Vayrynen, R 1999, More Questions Than Answers: Dilemmas of Humanitarian Action, Peace & Change, 24, 2, p. 172, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 19 July 2012. Way, J 2010, ‘Haiti: The impacts of Militarised Aid,’ Upside Down World, viewed 19 July 2012, at: < http://upsidedownworld.org/main/international-archives-60/2346-the-impacts-of-militarized-aid> Wertheim, S 2010, A solution from hell: the United States and the rise of humanitarian interventionism, 1991-2003, Journal Of Genocide Research, 12, 3/4, pp. 149-172, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 19 July 2012. Woodward, SL 2001, Humanitarian War: A New Consensus?’ Disasters, 25, 4, p. 331, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 19 July 2012. Read More