Canadian Consortium on Human Security

Cheshmak Farhoumand-Sims*

Traditional post-conflict peace initiatives require the active engagement of various actors: the military to promote security, aid agencies which engage in the delivery of humanitarian assistance and support social and economic development, and international actors such as NGOs, states, and the UN which provide the capacity to fledging institutions in a failed state to strengthen the infrastructures that are necessary for stability and sustainable peace.

In recent years, this traditional approach is being replaced by the concept of ‘three block war’. This was a term coined by US General Charles Krulak. The transition took place initially in the US and has now been popularized by the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian military. According to the model, “on the first block we will deliver humanitarian aid or assist others in doing so. On the second, we will conduct stabilization or peace support operations. On the third, we will be engaged in a high intensity fight.”[i] The approach demands readiness to “conduct the operations simultaneously and very close to one another.”[ii] The three block war model found expression in Afghanistan in 2003 when the United States established Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in Gardez, Kunduz and Bamyan followed soon after by the British in Mazar-e-Sharif in the north and Canada in the South. The stated purpose of the PRTs was to act as vehicles for “advancing the central government’s presence throughout Afghanistan and to provide direct support to the reconstruction effort.”[iii]

While most in military circles see this approach as innovative and pragmatic given the changing nature of conflict, the general consensus among non-military actors, including NGOs, aid organizations, and grass root groups in post conflict zones is that the model is problematic, detrimental to peace efforts and insufficiently problematized. This article outlines in brief the three main concerns with the militarization of aid in Afghanistan.

Firstly, it is inappropriate and indeed impossible to undertake peacebuilding while engaged in a violent military operation. The three block war approach prescribes this and finds expression in Afghanistan both in the form of the PRTs and more recently in the counterinsurgency efforts in the south framed as the battle to “win hearts and minds”. Moreover, the blurring of lines between military action and humanitarianism weakens the effectiveness of the work of aid agencies who have long operated in Afghanistan thereby undermining one of the basic principles of aid delivery, neutrality and impartiality. This compromises the safety and security of aid workers. We have seen a noticeable increase in attacks on foreign aid workers and their Afghan colleagues who are seen to be ‘collaborating’ with the ‘outsiders’ resulting in the departure of Medecin Sans Frontiers, Care, and other organizations. Unfortunately, it also compromises the safety of aid recipients. While aid agencies have spent decades working in the field and developing best practices models, militaries lack the experience and expertise to deliver aid thereby leading to confusion and chaos. It would be prudent to return to traditional peace operations approach which allows the military to focus on security, and leave aid organizations to do what they do best which is to deliver aid and alleviate suffering.

A second important issue of concern relating to militarization of aid is the lack of engagement of local actors to contribute to sustainable peace and development. Traditionally, humanitarian organizations work with locals to develop and implement aid programs. Engaging local actors allows for capacity building so that the work can be continued by grassroots colleagues when the aid actors depart the post conflict zone. Care Canada operated on this model and was able to sustain some of its projects after it was forced to remove its Canadian employees due to security concerns.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, militarization of aid has significantly detrimental effects on the status of women. In Afghanistan, the military presence has resulted in the further exclusion of women from the public space and has had the effect of contributing to rigid interpretations of Islam and its accompanying restrictions on women’s rights. Furthermore, when aid is delivered by soldiers, it is less likely to reach the most vulnerable – women and their children. This vulnerability has led aid organizations to encourage better participation of women in the delivery of aid to their communities and has ensured an improved distribution. It is impossible for the military to do the same, particularly in Afghanistan where cultural customs call for the separation of women from all non-related men. Although aid militarization benefits the military by creating the impression of the new ways it can contribute to ‘peace,’ it is problematic given the very goal of military campaigns is the use of force to resolve conflict. Unless these fundamental issues are taken into account the militarization of aid will hinder rather than serve cause of peace in Afghanistan.

[i] Department of National Defence: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/LF/English/5_4_1_1.asp?FlashEnabled=1&

[ii] Department of National Defence: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/LF/English/5_4_1_1.asp?FlashEnabled=1&

[iii] Peace Operations Working Group of the Canadian Peace Coordinating Committee, (2003), “NGO/Government Dialogue on Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in Afghanistan and the Militarization of Humanitarian Assistance.”