Canadian Consortium on Human Security

Mrinalini Menon*

This article aims to provide a background to the militarization of the delivery of humanitarian aid. In doing so, it underlines the importance of taking a human security perspective to what is increasingly viewed as a national security matter. It concludes by identifying some key research questions which could help formulate thinking on the Canadian policy agenda in Afghanistan.

The trend toward the militarization of the delivery of aid began in 1991 with Operation Providing Comfort, where US troops became involved in the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the Kurds in Iraq. Since then, military personnel and equipment have been controversially involved in aid delivery in various reconstruction efforts in conflict zones like Somalia, Bosnia, and most recently in Afghanistan.

Based on the premise that complex emergencies require complex responses from the international community, it is important to ask whether the international community needs to rethink what might be considered outmoded concepts and means of delivering humanitarian assistance. On the other hand, following recent experiences in Afghanistan, can the international community return to an understanding of intervention and reconstruction where the scope and functions of the military are clearly delineated from that of impartial aid workers?

The increasing numbers of deaths of aid workers in Afghanistan in absolute terms has forced donors, large international aid agencies, smaller NGOs, and members of the military to engage in a debate about what might be the most effective and impartial route to ensuring the delivery of humanitarian aid in a complex crisis. The NATO-mandated International Security Assistance Force’s (ISAF) emphasis on promoting civilian-military projects has motivated several NGOs and aid agencies to issue statements calling for the separation of military and humanitarian aspects of the intervention.

However, the US (and the UN) is seen to increasingly rely on armed military personnel for the delivery of aid which is intended to buttress its own counter-insurgency and counter-terrorist campaigns. There are some tensions between the priorities of the US-led coalition forces and ISAF as a result. Members of the international donor community argue that the militarization of aid delivery is hindering rather than helping aid workers fulfill their mandate in volatile areas of the country, thereby making aid workers “soft targets” and more prone to attack. There is also the additional problem of operational inefficiency if the military is deployed for purposes of aid delivery, since troops are not generally trained for humanitarian operations.

As it stands, humanitarian aid has become part of a “winning hearts and minds” campaign, just as the military is staging a similar, parallel effort to bring security and stability to the nascent Afghan state. Such efforts are perceived as taking away valuable and limited resources from an already strained military campaign. If humanitarian aid is seen as partisan, then aid workers themselves run the risk of being viewed as legitimate targets.

A “human security” lens has the potential to identify common objectives in the fields of both humanitarianism and development, and international security.[i] In this context, then, looking at the issue of militarization of humanitarian aid might be fruitful if done from a human security perspective. The Afghanistan National Human Development Report (2005) concluded that “the responsibility of the government and the international community in Afghanistan is to provide human security public goods for all Afghans, regardless of gender, ethnicity or geographic location.” [ii] However, one of the fundamental paradoxes underlying this statement is that a stable and secure state is required to provide freedom from fear to its residents. In a situation where the viability and environmental security of such a state remains a distant prospect, how does the international community develop an action plan for the provision of security to individuals?

Promoting a human security agenda has been compromised by the cost of promoting a national security agenda. In fact, one of the central paradoxes when assessing the Afghanistan intervention was that a state-centric approach has been adopted right from the beginning. This raises the issue of whether it is possible to co-opt a human security-oriented approach to the long term viability and sustainability of the reconstructed Afghan state.

Some of the key questions facing the international community and Canadian policy-makers are: Is the blurring of the lines between the military and aid workers serving to undermine the neutrality and legitimacy of aid agencies as an impartial party to the conflict? A related issue is that of determining whether aid workers should have increased or decreased visibility. It is also important to consider how the case of Afghanistan speaks to the issue of whether a human security agenda can be promoted along with a state-security approach. A study of this would help members of the international community identify ways in which it can be instrumental in bringing peace dividends five years into the invasion of Afghanistan, while continuing to simultaneously stage a counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operation. Lessons of this nature can be useful in understanding how aid should be delivered in complex emergencies.

[i] "Afghanistan and Threats to Human Security." Barnett, Rubin. (2002). Social Science Research Council, New York

[ii] Security with a Human Face: Challenges and Responsibilities. Tajbakhsh, S. Ed. (2005). Afghanistan National Human Development Report, United Nations Development Programme

Next Page - Reports, Analysis and Data