Unpacking the Civil-Military Relationship

French Armed Forces Recruiting Poster

ICRC Delegation Baghdad

aim

• PRTs are not the problem

• Accommodate the realities

• Be careful what we wish(ed) for- calls for ‘military intervention’, ‘security’, etc.

• Can we learn anything from armed forces?

outline

• Basic Definitions

• Background- Military/Humanitarian

• ʻKosovo Crossroadsʼ

• ICRC Guidelines on Civil-Military Relations

• Broader Environment

• 2005 onwards

Tsunami- Military Assistance

basic definitions

CIMIC is the co-ordination and co-operation, in support of the mission, between the NATO Commander and civil populations, including national and local authorities, as well as international, national and non-governmental organizations and agencies.

•interface; public face of the military, press campaign, intelligence•cooperation, coordination, information sharing, security briefing, •...humanitarian projects, reconstruction, nation building

CMCoord (UN)CMR (ICRC/SCHR) CIMIC (NATO) CA (USAF)

background- military

• armed forces looking for a new role in post Cold War context

• rise of peace-keeping then peace-enforcement

• need to be seen as ‘taking action’

• development of new roles

Streets-cape- Sarajevo

background- humanitarian

• protest the ‘militarization of humanitarian action’, birth of ‘humanitarian space’

• risk of such UN-mandated forces becoming belligerents risked blurring the distinction between political, military and humanitarian action

• orbiting in a simplistic debate about coordination, principles of last resort, armed escorts, intelligence vs. information

Outside Basra- 25.03.03

kosovo crossroads

• humanitarians ‘lost the thread’

• new threshold for military-humanitarian action- NATO, KBR, joint deployments

• military consolidated their learning and experience

• wave of new policies and doctrine

9/11 onwards- Afghanistan, Iraq

• armed forces taking on civilian roles/tasks has become a mainstream approach- Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Sierra Leone, Liberia, DRC...

• distinction between combat and PSO is increasingly vague

• limit our criticisms: states/armed forces meeting their obligations under IHL is part of the ideal of war

• increasingly pluralist community of ‘neutral’, ‘humanitarians’

Darfur

Increasing Sophistication of Armed Forces

Integrated ApproachesDistinction between Political, Military and Humanitarian Action?

• Confusion of actors

• Neutrality?

• “With us or against us” 9/11 flight

ICRC Civil-Military Guidelines- 2001

In our relationship with multinational military forces, the ICRC advocates for:

• Independence of decision making and action

• Dialogue at all times and levels, with multinational military missions

• Clear distinction of roles and actors in times of armed conflict

broader environment and consequences

• UN push towards integrated approaches- humanitarian, political, DPKO, others

• US-driven nation-building agenda and the compatibility with humanitarian action

• blurring of lines and roles

• divergence of views in the humanitarian community

• competition

2005 reality check- Tsunami

• military faster and equally professional

• new ‘wave of optimism’ for military

• divergence of perspectives in the humanitarian community- for, against, indifferent

• integrated missions debate, nation/regional evolutions (PCRU, NATO/EU)

SCHR position paper

• clarity of message- for it? against it? aware of it? addressing it?

• reflection of SCHR member’s positions?

• confusion with IHL, UN mandates and parties to a conflict?

• ... what do we want to say?

calling for military intervention

• compatibility with Code of Conduct

• neutrality and apolitical action

• confusion with IHL, UN mandates and parties to a conflict?

conclusions

• PRTs are not the problem

• Accommodate the realities

• Be careful what we wish(ed) for- calls for ‘military intervention’, ‘security’, etc.

• Can we learn anything from armed forces?

questions/comments?