International Rescue Committee UK

Humanitarian aid agencies and military personnel are increasingly operating in the same environment in conflict -affected countries around the world. In very unstable regions, the operational space for humanitarian action has diminished with the military playing a far more active role in aid delivery.

The development of a Comprehensive Approach (UK) or Whole-of-Government approach (US) to post-conflict reconstruction has seen foreign military personnel delivering aid as part of a strategic campaign to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of local populations. In some highly militarised environments – as in the aftermath of natural disasters – it may be that national or foreign militaries are more organised, better resourced and have access to more locations than humanitarian organisations. However, proposals to vastly extend the role of the military in delivering aid and development programmes risk dangerously blurring the lines between the role and mandate of humanitarian workers and military personnel with major repercussions for the long-term success of aid programmes. Efforts should instead be made to strengthen civilian institutions to ensure that they can fulfil the roles appropriate to them.

The International Rescue Committee (IRC) works in conflict and post-disaster zones throughout the world including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Chad and the Central African Republic. Experience shows that the success and sustainability of humanitarian projects depends on the involvement of the local community and the understanding that humanitarian aid workers are independent, impartial and not beholden to any military force. The effectiveness of aid programmes may be placed at risk if local populations or warring parties perceive ties between soldiers and humanitarian workers. Not only can humanitarian aid workers come under threat, but local populations can refuse help out of fear that they may become targets of one side in the conflict as a result of accepting assistance from the other.

In addition, professional humanitarian workers spend careers cultivating a craftsmanship of aid delivery that emphasises empowerment and participation of local communities; enhancing capacity of national institutions; gender equity; and promoting self-reliance of individual beneficiaries. Sustainable aid and development is as much about building trust and confidence as building schools and hospitals, and depends on the involvement and trust of local populations.

The military have a vital role in establishing the security and stability that is a prerequisite for meaningful development. However, they cannot gain overnight the decades of field experience of humanitarian agencies, or the cultural understanding that local staff and civilian agencies possess. Nor can they shed their perception as belligerents in any conflict as easily as they put down their rifles.

The IRC believes that:

• Humanitarian assistance should be impartial, independent and delivered on the basis of need – in accord with humanitarian principles – regardless of strategic importance.
• The independence and civilian nature of humanitarian assistance must be emphasised at all times to protect the safety of recipients and humanitarian aid workers.
• While the military may have certain unique advantages in response to natural disasters, such as unrivalled speed of response, lift capability and logistics expertise, in these cases use of the military for emergency relief projects should be limited. The military should be deployed only in extraordinary circumstances and only at the onset of an emergency. Humanitarian response should be directed by civilians trained for that role.
• On any criteria, whether effectiveness, sustainability or cost-effectiveness, the delivery of aid by humanitarian actors in or near conflict zones is preferable to aid delivered by military personnel.

February 2010