This paper criticises the involvement of military forces side by side with the humanitarian NGOs in humanitarian assistance situations. The mutual interest of both of them for working in the same field necessitates the cooperation between the relief NGOs and military forces for the purpose of coordination in delivering aid and ensuring the security of the latter. Discussed within are the benefits of involving the military forces into humanitarian aid and the main threats that arise from their involvement. The paper also analyses the military practises that destabilise the humanitarian principles by highlighting examples from situations happened in conflicts and complex emergencies. Suggestions for making the military involvement- if it is a must - to be more humanitarian are also illustrated in the paper.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Discussion
2.1 The increased involvement of military in humanitarian aid
2.2 Seeking safety and security for humanitarian staff and operations
2.3 The added values and the main concerns of engaging military assets and personnel in humanitarian response
2.3.1 MSF example
2.3.2 IR example
2.4 The military intervention and the humanitarian principles
2.4.1 Humanity
2.4.2 Impartiality and independence
2.4.3 Neutrality
2.5 Suggested guidelines and measures to minimise risks of engaging military actors in humanitarian response
3. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines the complex relationship between humanitarian NGOs and military forces in emergency settings, aiming to analyze the benefits and severe risks associated with their cooperation, while establishing guidelines to protect humanitarian principles.
- The impact of military involvement on humanitarian aid delivery and operational security.
- The tension between strategic military agendas and the necessity of humanitarian neutrality.
- The practical implications of "hearts and minds" operations on the safety of aid workers.
- Proposed regulatory frameworks and coordination mechanisms for civilian-military engagement.
Excerpt from the Book
IR example
Osman (2005) as a humanitarian aid worker from IR narrated his own experience while providing assistance for the victims of the War against Iraq. He said: “Although the Geneva Convention obligates the American military as an occupation force to apply the law and to protect the civilians whenever protection is needed, unfortunately the Americans did not do anything to protect us or to support us as humanitarian aid workers”.
He emphasises the bias of the military forces towards achieving military political aims than providing humanitarian relief as they are not specialised or even trained on humanitarian issues. He added that “the military’s first priority was to win the war and to protect only themselves, which reflects their narrow minded way of thinking when it comes to civilians’ matters or to the humanitarian aid. Their main purpose is to maintain the stability and security than to alleviate the vulnerability of people and satisfy their basic needs. But if they do or cooperate with NGOs to provide relief for people in a certain area that would be for suppressing any demonstration or a civil unrest that may arises by those people for not getting their basic needs of water, food and medical treatment”.
Osman describes his trial to cooperate with the military by saying: “I had a conversation with one of the American military commanders who are responsible for marinating the security in one of Baghdad’s sectors, in which we were located to provide our humanitarian services to people. I asked him to help us as IR in conveying our relief to people and facilitating our mission but he replied simply: “Listen this is not our job here and we don’t understand it”. Then he pointed at his advanced weapon and said “we are here as fighters this is the only thing that we understand” (Osman, 2005: pp. 218-221).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the rising tensions between humanitarian organizations and military forces due to conflicting objectives and the necessity of cooperation in complex emergency environments.
2. Discussion: Explores the factors driving military involvement, the search for staff security, specific case studies, impacts on humanitarian principles, and suggested mitigation guidelines.
3. Conclusion: Summarizes that while military assets can support aid delivery, their involvement often threatens the neutral image of NGOs, necessitating strict civilian control and adherence to humanitarian principles.
Keywords
Humanitarian aid, military intervention, NGOs, complex emergencies, neutrality, impartiality, civilian-military relations, security, humanitarian principles, hearts and minds operations, aid coordination, conflict, emergency response, independence, relief operations.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The research focuses on the intersection of humanitarian aid delivery and military operations, specifically analyzing how military involvement impacts the safety, operational independence, and neutrality of NGOs.
What are the central thematic fields covered?
The document covers humanitarian intervention, military logistical support, the challenges of operating in conflict zones, and the preservation of humanitarian principles in the face of strategic military objectives.
What is the primary objective of this work?
The primary objective is to critically assess the benefits and threats arising from civil-military cooperation and to identify guidelines that minimize risks to humanitarian actors.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The work utilizes a combination of literature review, analysis of organizational reports (UN, ICRC), and qualitative case study evidence from humanitarian workers in conflict zones like Iraq and Rwanda.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body examines the drivers of military intervention, the need for security, the "hearts and minds" dilemma, the violation of core humanitarian principles, and potential coordination frameworks.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include humanitarian aid, military intervention, neutrality, civil-military relations, humanitarian principles, and complex emergencies.
How does the author view the "hearts and minds" operations?
The author views these operations with skepticism, noting that they often serve state-driven strategic stability goals rather than the genuine, neutral needs of vulnerable populations.
What conclusion does the author reach regarding cooperation?
The author concludes that military services should only be utilized by humanitarian organizations as a last resort, under civilian management, and within a framework that strictly prioritizes humanitarian principles.
- Quote paper
- Nabila EL-Gabalawi (Author), 2008, Humanitarian – Military Relations in Emergencies, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/293523
