Measuring Commitment to Best Practice
HRI
NEWS
The Role of Armed Forces in Humanitarian Action
“… In situations where military capacity and assets are used to support the implementation of humanitarian action, ensure that such use is in conformity with international humanitarian law and humanitarian principles and recognises the leading role of humanitarian organisations.”
Principle 19 of the Principles and Good Practices of Humanitarian Donorship
Since the end of the Cold War, the distinction between humanitarian and military action has become increasingly blurred. Some sectors call this process “aid militarisation,” a situation that has worsened since 9/11, undermining the perception of neutrality of the humanitarian responses. This is the case because, although the military forces intend to be impartial, it is not entirely possible as they represent the interests of the state to which they belong.
Since the beginning of the 1980´s, coinciding with the establishment of military operations to protect the Kurds from the attacks of the Iraqi regime, armed forces’ interventions in humanitarian action has increased dramatically. At this time, action of this sort was just beginning and therefore, planning was scarce. As time went by, however, the diversity of conflicts and the global war on terrorism, which inaugurated the 21st Century, progressively, have created a tendency that transfers humanitarian functions and responsibilities to national and international military forces. These functions range from the armed protection of humanitarian convoys to the direct distribution of aid to the affected population. In this way, the distinction between humanitarian and military actions gradually has become diluted, leading to increasing confusion over the responsibilities of each group.
In the middle of the Kosovo War, for example, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization spokesperson and then President of the United States, Bill Clinton, did not hesitate to justify the war with humanitarian motivations. Expressions like “humanitarian war” or “humanitarian bombardments” were coined. Similarly, in 2001 and during the American air strike on Afghanistan, US forces distributed emergency food aid, releasing more than thirty thousand food rations in parachutes. This aid was part of the humanitarian aid promised by the Clinton Administration to alleviate the Afghanistan crisis, and was delivered by the same army that bombed the country daily.
Principles 19 and 20 of the Good Humanitarian Donorship Initiative recap the “primary position of civilian organisations in implementing humanitarian action, particularly in areas affected by armed conflict.” In accordance with these principles, which were adopted by all members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee, including the United States, the utilisation of military resources should only take place in situations when it is absolutely indispensable, and always in accordance with international humanitarian law. Humanitarian organisations must assume the leading role in this kind of actions, never the military, who should be a collaborator, not actor, and should never be involved in the direct provision of humanitarian aid.
There are numerous reasons to explain the increasing attraction of humanitarian activities to the armed forces. While humanitarian organisations impartially offer aid based on the needs of those affected by crises, the armed forces usually use humanitarian aid as a means of attaining strategic objectives and, at the same time, “win the hearts and minds” of the population and the general public. The direct provision of humanitarian aid can serve to make the image of the army “more human,” which is vital to their security in complex situations. Some note an instrumentalisation of aid in this new strategy, which is closer to marketing than humanitarism and whose end goal seems to be increasing the credibility of the military.
The interference between humanitarian organisations and the military creates confusion. Consequently, humanitarian actors and the military are mistaken and the neutrality required of humanitarian actions is distorted. The result of this situation is frequently dangerous for relief workers who can be attacked for being considered close to one party to the conflict. Many recall the bloody attacks on the headquarters of the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross in Baghdad four years ago, which took the lives of 22 people. In 2004, five staff members of Doctors without Borders were killed in Afghanistan and a Taliban spokesperson justified the attack by accusing the organisation of serving American interests. In August 2006, 15 humanitarian workers were killed while working in Sri Lanka during the post-tsunami reconstruction. All around the world, humanitarian organisations are experiencing violent attacks on their staff and buildings, leading to the withdrawal of several organisations from the most troubled areas.
The most reputable humanitarian actors only request military participation as a last resort, in very exceptional cases, during the emergency phase, and always when no civilian alternative exists. The objective of humanitarian action is not the resolution of conflicts but the guarantee that the civil population receives the necessary aid impartially and without any type of distinction in the distribution, as stated in international humanitarian law.
The complexity these issues have acquired over the last 15 years, and the need to agree on a framework for coordination and collaboration between the military and humanitarian actions, led to the 1994 approval of the Oslo Guidelines (Guidelines on the Use of Military and Civil Defence Assets in Disaster Relief), a set of principles that aim to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of military interventions in humanitarian actions and in peace-time situations. Almost ten years later, in 2003, the MCDA Guidelines were created (Guidelines on the Use of Military and Civil Defence Assets to Support United Nations Humanitarian Activities in Complex Emergencies), whose goal is to define military actions within UN actions. Both documents demonstrate the international community’s concern over an issue that provokes great controversy. These guidelines define exceptional situations in which the involvement of non-civilian organisations in humanitarian tasks is the only possible way to save lives, alleviate suffering, maintain security and protect human dignity.
The increasing number of actors in the humanitarian action field and the growing complexity of the crises require the strict maintenance of neutrality in all actions, as well as the precise definition of the responsibilities and competencies of the humanitarian organisations and the military – without the latter taking on humanitarian competencies. The Principles of Good Humanitarian Donorship express in principle 20 the signatory countries’ responsibility to respect and promote the use of the 1994 Guidelines (revised in 2006) and the 2003 Guidelines as reference documents for civilian-military operations. Donors should have a clear understanding of the need to continue distinguishing between humanitarian and military actions, given that effective assistance for millions of people in the world, the protection of their lives and those of relief workers depend greatly on this distinction.