Elie Abouaoun
10 February 2015
In settings where parties to a conflict may interpret their behavior as taking sides, how should humanitarian actors approach civil-military relations?
It has long been the case that civil-military relations give rise to serious dilemmas for humanitarian actors. However, these dilemmas have been amplified by the increased presence of non-state armed actors in situations of armed conflict. In order to address these dilemmas, humanitarian actors need to recognize two new realities. First, they must acknowledge the need to engage non-state military actors in dialogue concerning protection of civilians. Second, they need to have a good understanding of how local military and non-state actors perceive humanitarians, which is key to knowing what forms of interaction are appropriate. Perceptions often vary not only between different regions of the world, but even within the same country.
Are there instances when you think humanitarian and military actors should keep their separation?
The clearest red line for civil-military coordination is ensuring that humanitarian action does not serve any military or political purpose. While this may be hard to identify in practice, a good starting point is referring to the mandates of each actor in relation to the protection of civilians.
What do you see as the risks stemming from confusion regarding protection mandates?
From a practitioner perspective, I believe one of the main consequences of a lack of clear definitions is discretionary interpretation – different actors often hold working definitions that serve their own goals. This may lead to confusion and double standards and it leaves civilians and humanitarian personnel at risk.
From my experience in Iraq, a lack of a clear definitions meant that protection concerns were considered on a case-by-case basis, depending on the military leadership. When engaging military actors, therefore, it was necessary to “learn” how to speak their language. Today’s discussions about Iraq are focused primarily on whether to authorize more airstrikes or deploy more ground troops – there is little effort and resources for the political track, local reconciliation, or the protection of civilians in affected areas.
Another example of confusion relating to protection mandates is the case of Libya, where the public, as well as humanitarian actors, have been left skeptical about what a military mission with a narrow approach can do for the protection of civilians.
