Potentially Lethal: Increased Relationship Between Military And Aid

A meeting this month in Kabul turned acrimonious when USAID and Department of Defense (DoD) officials briefed international aid agencies on the new policy of the US government. The plan, titled Civilian-Military Cooperation Policy, outlines that USAID will "cooperate with DoD in joint planning, assessment and evaluation, training, implementation, and communication in all aspects of foreign assistance activities where both organizations are operating, and where civilian-military cooperation will advance USG foreign policy."

Attending the meeting were top US officials and representatives from CARE, World Vision USA, American Red Cross, Save the Children, Mercy Corps, International Relief and Development, CHF International, Islamic Relief USA, Catholic Relief Services, the International Rescue Committee and InterAction, all of whom receive funding through USAID.

The Chief Operating Officer of USAID, Alonzo Fulgham, said he understood that non-governmental organizations might be less than enthusiastic about military-civilian cooperation, but already the DoD is "very active in development efforts around the globe" and it's time that the relationship with USAID was clarified.

It is USAID policy "for all operating units to cooperate with DoD in joint planning and implementation...in all aspects of foreign assistance activities where both organizations are operating and where civilian-military cooperation will advance USG foreign policy," Thomas Baltazar, the Director of USAID's Office of Military Affairs told the meeting.

David Lang

A delegate from InterAction, the largest coalition of US based NGOs, representing 172 organizations, accused USAID and the DoD of a classic "bait and switch." InterAction had previously supported DoD allocating budgets for "reconstruction, security, or stabilization assistance to a foreign country," but now they felt that the motivation was " to fund development projects favored by the military".

This new expanded sphere of DoD influence means that it will be able to create and enlarge its humanitarian programs. It will also take a greater role in policy-making, decisions and directives about the funding of security assistance programs and humanitarian activities.

Critics argue that new humanitarian programs at DoD may weaken development goals: who will have the final say if U.S. foreign policy and development goals conflict with military objectives in unstable countries where the issues of development and security can be intertwined?

Elizabeth Ferris, Senior Fellow from the Brookings Institution, told the Huffington Post that any increased relationship between the US military and humanitarian aid is extremely difficult and potentially lethal. "Once insurgent groups (or governments in some situations) perceive that a humanitarian organization is acting to pursue military or political objectives, that organization loses the protection it had by virtue of respect for humanitarian principles. If it is known (or suspected) that a humanitarian NGO is not only treating wounded kids in an insurgent area, but is also passing on information about that area to military officials, the NGO usually loses its protection from all sides. Rather than being seen as acting impartially on the basis of humanitarian need, it is seen as a party to the conflict -- and too often, fair game for attacks on its staff by insurgents."

In Afghanistan's case, aid workers have become a target in the past year, often suspected of spreading Christianity, western cultural values or for being spies. It is a difficult terrain to navigate, complicated by gender, religious, political and ethnic issues, and Elizabeth Ferris argues that American NGOs are in a particularly difficult situation.

"On one level, they are accountable to their donors. On another level, they need to be seen as independent, impartial, and neutral in order to be true to humanitarian principles and to win the confidence of the population," she says. "If they are seen as being a 'force multiplier' (in Colin Powell's famous words in 2003, referring to American NGOs in Iraq), they lose credibility as humanitarians."

Ferris says that figures indicate that U.S. international aid is becoming increasingly militarized. "From channeling something like 4% of U.S. overseas assistance a few years ago the military channeled something like 22% of all U.S. aid last year," she says. "Which means that rather than aid being seen as a response by the U.S. population to suffering people in need, it is increasingly seen as another tool of U.S. foreign policy."

In a November 2007 speech at the University of Kansas - widely reported because it seemed, at the time, out of character - Defense Secretary Robert Gates called for "strengthening our capacity to use "soft" power" through civilian agencies like USAID and the State Department. Gates was concerned "that we have yet to create any permanent capability or institutions to rapidly create and deploy [civilian] skills in the future."

He called for "a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security -- diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action and economic reconstruction and development."

Elizabeth Ferris at Brookings Institution agrees that more money should go to civilian-led projects, not the combining of civilian and military institutions and agendas. She thinks that many organizations will decline further involvement with USAID under this new policy. The agency has acknowledged that many NGOs may find it out of the question to deal any longer with USAID.

"If US humanitarian NGOs refuse to work under these conditions," says Ferris, "The [U.S. government] can turn to for-profit contractors to provide the needed service without the bother of dealing with humanitarian principles. "

Comments

[Lee6023]

Great article. Very relevant at this time.

Just wanted to point out one mistake: "InterAction, the world's largest NGO coalition, representing 172 organizations", is incorrect. There are many NGO coalitions that are far larger (see BOND or NCVO in the UK, even the Council for International Development where I work in little New Zealand has 100 members, not far off). InterAction is probably the largest international development NGO network in the US (and does great work, by the way).

[Virginia M. Moncrieff - Huffpost Blogger]

Lee 6023 - many thanks for correcting this. I did mean the largest in the US but my fingers on the keyboard obviously did not match the brain in my head. I have changed the text, and thank you very kindly for having such an eagle eye!

[JPVance]

My brother was killed last month in Pakistan under exactly the conditions described, the leathal mix of humanitarian aid and military goals. It appears obvious enough that blurring the lines between the two puts NGO personnel at greater risk and inadvertantly causes host countries to question their underlying motives.

What is worse still, these NGOs' either cannot or do not follow the same security protocols as do US agencies. So you have a situation in which embassy employee Lynne Tracy is attacked while in her armored car three months prior to my brothers attack in which he was not given an armored car. So not only are aid NGOs at greater risk, but they are not required to follow the same proceedures to protect themselves.

This policy clearly needs changing and a foundation has been set up with this as its primary goal. The Stephen D Vance Foundation wishes to help coordinate the necessary pressure in order to achieve this goal.

[Virginia M. Moncrieff - Huffpost Blogger]

I'm sorry I have taken so long to reply to your post.

If anyone is interested in this organization to honor Stephen's life please read below :

The Stephen D. Vance Foundation was created to provide support services to the families of slain international aid workers. Stephen D. Vance was assassinated in Peshawar, Pakistan on November 12, 2008, where he had been leading a team of aid workers to bring development into the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of north western Pakistan, an area long left behind.

http://www.workingarts.com/stephendvance_foundation/

[DaveinBrooklyn]

USAID is the US Governments official aid agency so its not difficult to understand why or how they would align themselves with the interests of the military and or the governments foreign policy directives. It is however morally unacceptable to allow ANY military association with the Non-Governmental agencies. like Memet pointed out, the deaths of MSF volunteers caused them to pull out of a country they have been working freely in for well over 20 years! MSF director Kenny Gluck wrote an article describing the use of air dropped leaflets along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan declaring that humanitarian aid will cease unless villagers work with and inform coalition soldiers to help capture Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters.
Linking aid to the military endangers the lives of ALL aid workers everywhere.
Virginia beautifully points out the short sighted efforts of those not in the region to undermine the efforts of those who are.
Great job Virginia!

[aspizon]

Just more blurring of US global strategic and humanitarian interests and a huge foreign policy blunder. But then, who would expect anything else from the current administration? Unless our humanitarian aid can be clearly seen as unselfish and non-political assistance, it will become or remain suspect. Add to that any discernable military involvement and the consequence will be increased cynicism and suspicion and that won't do our image any good at all.

[memet]

How to deliver aid more effectively in unstable environments is one question - but not the only one.

What if foreign policy and aid / development goals are not the same? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this part of the problem in Afghanistan a few years ago? Foreign policy priorities were to chase down al-Qaeda. In southern Afghanistan, this resulted in convenient alliances with warlords who shouldn't have been part of 'rebuilding' Afghanistan. These warlords were therefore strengthened, and weakened the chances of building civil society and accountable government institutions.

How is aid supposed to form an 'effective collaboration' with military when aid and military / foreign policy priorities can be quite opposite?

InterAction might complain, but didn't MSF pull out of Afghanistan in 2004 after some of their staff were killed, citing these reasons? This issue has been a flashing red light for some time, and for various reasons the aid sector as a whole hasn't come to grips with it sufficiently to advocate for what they want.

Incidentally, aid programs often come up against foreign policy mechanisms in ways that already create awkward restrictions. For example in Nepal leading up to this year's elections. Those elections were part of a peace process between political parties and the Maoists. But the Maoists were on a US terror list, and so couldn't be included in any US-funded aid programs. You might not like the Maoists, but in cases like this, foreign policy aid restrictions can actually undermine peace.

[Bonobo]

It seems to me the larger problem is the mission confusion between military and police work. When the same uniforms go on kill and destroy missions, and are also supposed to provide security to civilian populations, both soldiers and insurgents start confusing targets. The mindset of military and police work is also quite different. There's a reason we have the concept of posse comitatus. We need a separate force specifically dedicated to providing law enforcement to failed or weak states, which will be a much more frequent threat in the future than organized armies. Laws enforced must also be determined BEFORE engagement. The population involved must be able to easily understand where the lines are, or they will resist out of simple frustration, as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[driselda]

I think Elizabeth Fariis's view is absolutely right: I spent a long time in the field and in many countries where the govt controls every day life it is difficult for people to udnerstand that you are there simply to help, not to spy or report on them to your govt or their govt. We must consistently seperate indviduals who do aid work from soldiers and continue to support independence in the field so that people are happy to get help when they can, without fear. Thank you Elizabeth Farris.

[bloggolb]

i'm a overseas humanitarian worker - and i think in the long run - this policy will not work and cause more deteriment to the population living in crisis or poverty. Aid care is able to access many trouble spots in the world - because they are perceived to be neutral; we even work behind rebel lines. These include places that usaid govt staff are not able to enter. If aid workers becomes associated with the military (even soft power) , or seen to be an extension of it, it puts this neutrality and risk, and the lives of aid workers at risk. As well as the delivery of care inthese areas. THe end doesnt justify the means in this case. One of things that aid work needs is more funding, and also to work closely with the local comunities in organizing their relief or development. It doesnt need to be associated with the soft power - it doesnt add anything to relief or development. (though I know that govt may give to aid agencies to support its cause - but it is done thru other agencies - like state dept or usaid - but not balantly through dod)
I disagree with the poster, who says this will change in the Obama adminstration. Since Gates and Obama have talked about an increase use of the military's soft power in this matter. But hopefuly Obama will listen and change his mind on this. his mother was an overseas work - he

[bloggolb]

i'm a overseas humanitarian worker - and i think in the long run - this policy will not work and cause more deteriment to the population living in crisis or poverty. Aid care is able to access many trouble spots in the world - because they are perceived to be neutral; we even work behind rebel lines. These include places that usaid govt staff are not able to enter. If aid workers becomes associated with the military (even soft power) , or seen to be an extension of it, it puts this neutrality and risk, and the lives of aid workers at risk. As well as the delivery of care inthese areas. THe end doesnt justify the means in this case. One of things that aid work needs is more funding, and also to work closely with the local comunities in organizing their relief or development.
I disagree with the poster, who says this will change in the Obama adminstration. Since Gates and Obama have talked about an increase use of the military's soft power in this matter. But hopefuly Obama will listen and change his mind on this. his mother was an overseas work - he should know better!

[Virginia M. Moncrieff - Huffpost Blogger]

I think it is an incredibly difficult choice - even though the aim is simple - to get the maximum help to the maximum people with no harm done. Perhaps this comes in different scenarios for different countries but usually we are working in conflicted societies where caution is needed. We have seen so often when 'friendly armies' turn into 'occupying forces' in the eyes of locals and so to enable humanitarian aid to do its absolute best - save lives - every consequence has to be weighed up. In some many ways, we opt for a one-size-fits-all option and there really can be no blue-print.

Thank you all so very much for reading and compliments of the season.

[SoutheastReview]

Kudos to Ms. Moncrieff for this overview of current tensions. Readers seem to be missing fundamental points about 'foreign aid,' however. JFK's lofty inaugural oath is apt. "To ... new States..., we pledge ... that one form of colonial control shall not ... be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. ...To... (poor) villages ... we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves. ...To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge... a new alliance for progress." Arguably, in Cuba, in the Dominican Republic, in Chile, and elsewhere throughout the world, Kennedy's vows rang hollow, as new forms of empire held sway.

Jack and his predecessors kept this promise. "Let ...neighbo­rs know ... we... join... them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere..­. . And let every power know ... this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house." If we extend this metaphor of mastery to the entire planet, we have an apt description ruling policy makers current hopes and schemes, as they seek to subsume all non-governmental prerogatives under an imperial umbrella.

Nancy Wallace, a former Peace Corps volunteer, turned into a fierce critic of 'foreign aid.' "To this day, I run into ... progressiv­e(people)w­ho ... view the Peace Corps (favorably) and think that it represents the benevolent, generous side of American society. It ... . is at bottom one more weapon in the arsenal of ... domination" Applying Wallace's lens to 'official' aid generally, NGO leaders current fears, at the

[kjo46]

The last paragraph says it all.

[11907281]

""The [U.S. government] can turn to for-profit contractors to provide the needed service without the bother of dealing with humanitarian principles. " - Cheney is smiling from ear to ear.

[beenthere3]

If you knew how much expensive beltway bandits are paid to put a bandaid on humanitarian crises, and some do not yield results, on behalf of USAID: perhaps the criticism of Dod would be muted.

Leading the construction of building roads, medical relief, and assistance on logistics management adds more trade and saves lives then a bunch of overpaid suits who pay a pittance to locals to sit in a chair and hear them talk about economic development, or hook up with doc and clinics that pilfer medical goods paid for by US taxpayers on the side for their private clinics. Food how much food aid is stolen and resold on the markets that US tax payers have paid .
Please. It makes greater deliverable efficiencies and why not have the good will delivered directly?
:ook at the administrative cost for these some of these so called non profit humantarian organizations who further contract out the service for the money provided by the US or the EU- what a rip off!

[Winningthepeace]

Much of what beenthere3 says makes sense. Some of the best humanitarian work is done by the military. Many of these NGOs are just one more group the military has to keep track of.
Both the military and aid groups need to focus on maintaining security in the countries where they opperate. Without security the people can't be helped. Aid groups in Afghanistan are mistaken if they think operating on a purely humanitarian basis will protect them. The military will not be able to defeat an insurgency unless it can provide security.
rememberafghanistan.net

[Noel]

Winningthepeace has it right. My son was in command of a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan for one year. The mission of the PRT was to coordinate aid to local villages through its own projects as well as those led by the NGOs. Everyone needed the security offered by the military through the PRT. As my son led convoys bringing medical and other humanitarian aid to outlying villages, the convoys were met, at times, with hostile fire. The insurgents were indifferent to the cost of civilian lives when they threatened both the PRT and local populations and they were dead set against the aid, be it medical, educational, or through construction projects. "Best humanitarian work is done by the military"? - Yes.

[research]

It's all going to change in 30 days.