Civil Military Relations


Published on

Comprehensive presentation that looks at the question of civil-military relations, specifically the relationship between multi-national military forces and international humanitarian organizations.

Published in: Education, Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Civil Military Relations

  1. 1. Unpacking the Civil-Military Relationship French Armed Forces Recruiting Poster
  2. 2. aim • PRTs are not the problem • Accommodate the realities • Be careful what we wish(ed) for- calls for ‘military intervention’, ‘security’, etc. ICRC Delegation Baghdad • Can we learn anything from armed forces?
  3. 3. outline Tsunami- Military Assistance • Basic Definitions • Background- Military/Humanitarian • ʻKosovo Crossroadsʼ • ICRC Guidelines on Civil-Military Relations • Broader Environment • 2005 onwards
  4. 4. 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)
  5. 5. background- military • armed forces looking for a new role in post Cold War context • rise of peace-keeping then peace-enforcement Streets-cape- Sarajevo • need to be seen as ‘taking action’ • development of new roles
  6. 6. background- humanitarian Outside Basra- 25.03.03 • 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
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. 9/11 onwards- Afghanistan, Iraq Darfur • 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’
  9. 9. Increasing Sophistication of Armed Forces
  10. 10. Integrated Approaches Distinction between Political, Military and Humanitarian Action? • Confusion of actors • Neutrality? • “With us or against us” 9/11 flight
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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)
  14. 14. 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?
  15. 15. calling for military intervention • compatibility with Code of Conduct • neutrality and apolitical action • confusion with IHL, UN mandates and parties to a conflict?
  16. 16. 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?
  17. 17. questions/comments?