Sweden’s Approach till Civil Military                        Coordination and Cooperation: The Example of                 ...
3<%*%4=1/(4>&?$"@(41>(+%./%0%%+?45(+%&.@(41ABCDEFGHBH                                                                  I!F...
Some Related Concepts            § Civil-Military Cooperation/Coordination (military lead [NATO])                § joint...
Why the Comprehensive Approach?            § Common in other areas (mediation; UN- vs non-UN PKOs, etc.)            § No...
Some Tools for the Comprehensive Approach            § Canada, Denmark, NL: MFA unit, executive, policy creation,        ...
Sweden: Strategic Level (Analysis, Planning)            § Request-->Govt-->MFA-->relevant departments, joint discussions ...
Sweden: Operative Level (Execution, Lessons Learned)            § Execution                § no formalized joint executi...
Sweden: Areas in Need of Refinement            § Government goal: unchanged actor roles and responsibilities;            ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Sweden’s Approach to Civil Military Coordination and Cooperation: The Example of International Peace Operations

1,086 views

Published on

Paper delivered to APCMCOE during Birger Heldt's (Folke Bernadotte Academy, Sweden) visit to research Australian civil-military coordination

Published in: Education, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,086
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
77
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Sweden’s Approach to Civil Military Coordination and Cooperation: The Example of International Peace Operations

  1. 1. Sweden’s Approach till Civil Military Coordination and Cooperation: The Example of International Peace Operations Birger Heldt Folke Bernadotte Academy Birger.Heldt@folkebernadotteacademy.seMonday, April 4, 2011
  2. 2. 3<%*%4=1/(4>&?$"@(41>(+%./%0%%+?45(+%&.@(41ABCDEFGHBH I!F,%*(+%&.@(41 !(4I!F,%*(+%&.@(41 %!!!"!"#$%&()*%+,(-%*+%./%0%%+%&1 $#!!" $!!!" #!!" !" $&(" $&#%" $&#)" $&)!" $&)" $&)(" $&*%" $&*)" $&(!" $&(" $&((" $&&%" $&&)" %!!!" %!!" %!!(" 2%.& 3("&/%.4*5&.+678(,0%9%&4.*(:%;/.*%#-Monday, April 4, 2011
  3. 3. Some Related Concepts § Civil-Military Cooperation/Coordination (military lead [NATO]) § joint strat./oper. planning supporting the military tasks/goals §Whole-of-government (all government actors cooperate) § cross-agency cooperation/coordination among “equals” § Comprehensive Approach (top-down in terms of goals-execution) § borderless cross-agency: focus on the overall tasks/goals/effect § joint analysis (strat.)->plan (strat.)->execute (oper., tact.)->LL § Integrated Missions (planning and execution; but slow to act) § only UN with resources under a single umbrella and leadership?Monday, April 4, 2011
  4. 4. Why the Comprehensive Approach? § Common in other areas (mediation; UN- vs non-UN PKOs, etc.) § No longer purely military operations/tasks: many actors § Division of labour § Avoid duplication, avoid/reduce turf mentality/habits § Increase efficiency, interdependence: interlinked effects; synergies § No single actor has sufficient resources: coordinate resources § But difficult: resources, cultures (incl. plan), mandates/goals, time of actorsMonday, April 4, 2011
  5. 5. Some Tools for the Comprehensive Approach § Canada, Denmark, NL: MFA unit, executive, policy creation, limited R/D § Australia (APCMCOE): DoD-owned COE, co-staffed, training, LL, policy, doctrine, not executive § UK (Stabilization Unit): co-owned/staffed (MoD, FCO, DfiD; Armed Forces, etc.), plan, executive, LL, policy § Sweden (FBA): government agency, not co-owned, executive, training, LL, policyMonday, April 4, 2011
  6. 6. Sweden: Strategic Level (Analysis, Planning) § Request-->Govt-->MFA-->relevant departments, joint discussions -->Govt decision-->prel. planning starts-->Govt proposition-- >Parliament decision-->Govt decision->final planning-> execution § Relevant government agencies are in touch, exchange info., but § strictly speaking no joint or formalized analysis among agencies § strictly speaking no joint or formalized planning among agencies § No clear government guidelines on jointness, just a concept § No formalized coordination/cooperation structures among agencies § informal groups, own initiatives: unclear mandates, exchange of information, culture of cooperation, concepts personal linksMonday, April 4, 2011
  7. 7. Sweden: Operative Level (Execution, Lessons Learned) § Execution § no formalized joint execution among agencies § no formalized coordination/cooperation structures among agencies § informal groups, own initiatives, but: unclear mandates, exchange of information, culture of cooperation, personal links § Lessons Learned § in the process: discussions on joint data gathering tool, etc.Monday, April 4, 2011
  8. 8. Sweden: Areas in Need of Refinement § Government goal: unchanged actor roles and responsibilities; compatible with international approaches § improved coordination: analysis, planning, execution, LL § formalized and permanent structures at all levels? § coordinated training? § staff exchange? § closer horizontal and vertical linking throughout the chain § Concrete government guidelines for the goals? § military-strategic doctrine in the works § Guidelines on cooperation/coordination at strategic and tactic levelMonday, April 4, 2011

×