Topic 2: The global context of humanitarian relief
Increasing Role of Military in Humanitarianism and Complex Emergencies
The role of the military in humanitarian situations is not new, as witnessed in the 1948/9 Berlin Airlift, when humanitarian supplies were flown into the beleaguered city by Western allied military aircraft over a 12 month period. While there has always been some elements of military involvement in humanitarian work (i.e. ‘hearts & minds’ programs), generally up until the end of the Cold War (1989/91) there was a clear distinction between humanitarian initiatives and military operations. While a few ex-military people had occasionally joined NGOs after their military service had ended, this was generally the exception to the norm. This situation began to change towards the end of the 1980’s and early 1990’s. NGOs began to employ small but increasing nNew innovative agencies such as the Mine Awareness Group http://www.magointernational.org specifically employed ex-military people, particularly for their technical skills such as being de-mining trainers. umbers of ex-military people, particularly for roles involving operations, logistics, and security management.
Following the end of the Cold War, there was a relatively short honeymoon period, typified by the Cambodian repatriation program where a range peace-keeping operatives involving a mixture of UN military and police worked closely and well with some of the more traditional humanitarian stakeholders. The stakeholders were the Red Cross in its various guises, operational UN agencies, and international NGOs, and their national partners. However during the 1990’s complex emergency situations developed, as highlighted by Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia-Herzegovina, which began to take on more serious and less successful complexions. In Iraq the targeted murder of NGO staff, followed by the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad in 2003, caused the majority of the more traditional humanitarian players to withdraw from that country. Afghanistan has managed to keep many NGOs operating, although their programs are generally limited to the relatively safer northern and western parts of the country.
There have been two developments which have resulted in claims from traditional humanitarian stakeholders, such as NGOs, that their ‘humanitarian space’ is being encroached upon. The first of these relates particularly to Afghanistan, where much of the development work throughout the country, but particularly that in more dangerous areas, is being carried out by Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These invariably operate with armed protection from the International Security Assistance Force, which includes Australia’s military contribution, and which comes under NATO Command and Control. The Provincial Reconstruction Teams are generally comprised of development practitioners who are not working for NGOs, but instead for private companies involved in recovery initiatives, and funded directly from Western donors (e.g. the US and European governments).
A second development over the past decade also encroaching on ‘humanitarian space’ is that of the growth of Private Service Providers. These are organisations which provide protection for development clientele, which, at the time of writing, are to be mainly found in conflict-related countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan (mainly Darfur), and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Private Service Provides include international companies which provide armed protection for their clients (which generally tend not to be NGOs), although the majority of Private Service Provider staff involved are nationals, with the largest group of employees being unarmed guards for facilities, residences and project sites.
Despite reservations made by the humanitarian sector (in particular some NGOs and UN agencies) towards the increasing deployment of military/police forces, as well as of Private Service Providers, there have been notable success stories of joint military-humanitarian agency cooperation in times of major disasters. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, and particularly the operation in Indonesia, worked particularly well, despite the potential sensitivity of military forces being deployed in an Indonesian province under Sharia law, and one where there had been ongoing insurgency problems. The foreign military contingent involved comprised a mixture of Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Western forces (i.e. Singaporean/ Malaysian/ US/Australian); and these took care to both not exceed their humanitarian mandate (which mainly combined transport coordination, logistics and medical support), but also to adhere strictly to their agreed exit strategy.
Separately, Pakistani military forces (supported by other international armed forces detachments) were deployed both following the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, as well as the 2010 Pakistan floods. In both cases, well organised logistical support was provided for remote or difficult-to-access communities. Following the 2008 Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar/Burma, a range of ASEAN and Western naval forces were again deployed off the south coast of the affected country to offer needed humanitarian assistance. However they were not given permission to operate by the host government, and later withdrew their presence and their humanitarian supplies.
Following the 2010 Haiti earthquake, whilst existing UN military and police forces have kept their presence, with varying degrees of success, the role played by US forces, particularly in coordinating logistical movements through the main airports and ports, has generally been praised. The majority of these US troops have now been withdrawn, their initial tasks having been achieved.