Comprehensive presentation that looks at the question of civil-military relations, specifically the relationship between multi-national military forces and international humanitarian organizations.

1. Unpacking the Civil-Military Relationship
French Armed Forces Recruiting Poster

2. aim
• PRTs are not the problem
• Accommodate the realities
• Be careful what we wish(ed) for- calls for
‘military intervention’, ‘security’, etc.
ICRC Delegation Baghdad
• Can we learn anything from armed forces?

3. outline
Tsunami- Military Assistance
• Basic Definitions
• Background- Military/Humanitarian
• ʻKosovo Crossroadsʼ
• ICRC Guidelines on Civil-Military Relations
• Broader Environment
• 2005 onwards

4. basic definitions
CIMIC is the co-ordination and co-operation, in support of the mission,
between the NATO Commander and civil populations, including national and
local authorities, as well as international, national and non-governmental
organizations and agencies.
•interface;
public face of the military, press campaign, intelligence
•cooperation, coordination, information sharing, security briefing,
•...humanitarian projects, reconstruction, nation building
CMCoord (UN)
CMR (ICRC/SCHR)
CIMIC (NATO)
CA (USAF)

5. background- military
• armed forces looking for a new
role in post Cold War context
• rise of peace-keeping then
peace-enforcement
Streets-cape- Sarajevo
• need to be seen as ‘taking action’
• development of new roles

6. background- humanitarian
Outside Basra- 25.03.03
• protest the ‘militarization of humanitarian action’, birth of ‘humanitarian
space’
• risk of such UN-mandated forces becoming belligerents risked blurring the
distinction between political, military and humanitarian action
• orbiting in a simplistic debate about coordination, principles of last resort,
armed escorts, intelligence vs. information

7. kosovo crossroads
• humanitarians ‘lost the thread’
• new threshold for military-humanitarian action- NATO, KBR,
joint deployments
• military consolidated their learning and experience
• wave of new policies and doctrine

8. 9/11 onwards- Afghanistan, Iraq
Darfur
• armed forces taking on civilian roles/tasks has become
a mainstream approach- Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti,
Sierra Leone, Liberia, DRC...
• distinction between combat and PSO is increasingly
vague
• limit our criticisms: states/armed forces meeting their
obligations under IHL is part of the ideal of war
• increasingly pluralist community of ‘neutral’,
‘humanitarians’

9. Increasing Sophistication of Armed Forces

10. Integrated Approaches
Distinction between Political, Military and Humanitarian Action?
• Confusion of actors
• Neutrality?
• “With us or against us” 9/11 flight

11. ICRC Civil-Military Guidelines- 2001
In our relationship with multinational military forces, the ICRC advocates for:
• Independence of decision making and action
• Dialogue at all times and levels, with multinational military missions
• Clear distinction of roles and actors in times of armed conflict

12. broader environment and consequences
• UN push towards integrated approaches- humanitarian, political, DPKO, others
• US-driven nation-building agenda and the compatibility with humanitarian action
• blurring of lines and roles
• divergence of views in the humanitarian community
• competition

13. 2005 reality check- Tsunami
• military faster and equally professional
• new ‘wave of optimism’ for military
• divergence of perspectives in the humanitarian community- for, against,
indifferent
• integrated missions debate, nation/regional evolutions (PCRU, NATO/EU)

14. SCHR position paper
• clarity of message- for it? against it? aware of it? addressing it?
• reflection of SCHR member’s positions?
• confusion with IHL, UN mandates and parties to a conflict?
• ... what do we want to say?

15. calling for military intervention
• compatibility with Code of Conduct
• neutrality and apolitical action
• confusion with IHL, UN mandates and parties to a conflict?

16. conclusions
• PRTs are not the problem
• Accommodate the realities
• Be careful what we wish(ed) for- calls for ‘military intervention’, ‘security’, etc.
• Can we learn anything from armed forces?

17. questions/comments?