MIHA Module 1 Assignment

Student No: 108049205

Department of Politics

University of York

Electronic Essay Submission Cover Sheet

This cover sheet should be the first page of your essay. Examination Number: 108049205

Module: 1

Essay Deadline: 6/5/2013

I confirm that I have

- checked that I am submitting the correct and final version of my essay

- formatted my essay in line with departmental guidelines

- conformed with University regulations on academic integrity

- included an accurate word count

- put my examinations number on every page of the essay

- not written my name anywhere in the essay

- saved my essay in pdf format

PLEASE TICK BOX TO CONFIRM

√


Securitization of aids in Humanitarian affairs: Provision of aids in Afghanistan Context

(2001-2005)

Abstract: This paper seeks to outline issues surrounding the politicization and militarization of

aids resulting from the use of comprehensive approaches, and to highlight the new challenges that

this trend poses for civilian populations, non governmental organizations and humanitarian aid

workers. The paper would also want to demarcate between military and humanitarian activities.

Through the examination of the Afghanistan case, it aims to investigate and analyze the impact of

civil-military relations in lieu of the humanitarian principles. The findings would dwell on the

purpose, roles, cooperation of civil-military interventions and consequences upon Afghanistan

after the 11 September. Whether the securitization of aids was the necessary approach and a

peaceful order or dangerous disorder, this study will tell us.

Key Words: Humanitarian aids, securitization of aids, politicization and militarization of aids,

stabilization, coherence and comprehensive approaches.


Humanitarian Aid Context.

Traditionally, effective humanitarian aid is supposed to help save lives, protect human

rights and build livelihoods. Yet in conflicts and politically unstable settings like

Afghanistan and Iraq, lifesaving humanitarian assistance and longer-term efforts to

reduce poverty are hard to achieve as aid is used primarily to pursue donors’ own

narrow political and security objectives. From onset, the concept and context of

humanitarianism was motivated and influenced by volunteering individuals and charity

institutions who provided emergency relief aids and care to victims of wars and

disasters. Later, as the result of increasing political conflicts and natural disasters

happening across the globe, it has made humanitarianism to be motivated by

professionalism being managed by professional and academic institutions. Because of its

broader scope and sophisticated concepts; humanitarian aid had to have in places

internationally acceptable ethical standards and principles to guide both humanitarian

organizations and aid workers during supply of emergency aids or humanitarian

development support, which is why humanitarian aid organizations must get involved

in sensitive interactions with state politics, military, civilian community and donor

governments in order to effectively deliver relief aids and services to particular

countries experiencing or affected by conflicts or disasters of all categories.

This led to emergence of New Wars and Complex emergencies necessitating

humanitarian activities to cover issues of human rights, development and law besides

delivery of assistance. Since the interventions are carried out in situations of armed

conflicts, humanitarianism had to include military components in its work in order to

provide peace and security to aids workers and beneficiary community. The reason the

military component has become part of humanitarian interventions is due to the


complexity of emergencies happening in many places globally characterized by

political divisions, violent conflicts of many forms, ethnic factions, tribal and religious

conflicts and some times breakdown of states drawing the attention and responses of

international community and NGOs. Whenever this happens, it has created automatic

concern and demand for external support to cool down the situation or soliciting

support from international humanitarian organizations to reduce and alleviate human

suffering or provide relief aids and care to victims of conflicts, civil war or disasters.

Therefore the humanitarian interventions of 1990s has given hopes to the international

community to actively respond to global conflicts and disasters because it provides

coordinated approach to crises by involving military, diplomatic relations, humanitarian

aids and development instruments within integrated political framework of host

countries to ensure safety, support and protection to relief workers and established

security to the beneficiary community.

The aftermath of 9/11 has also made the security agenda to triumph over the plights of

vulnerable populations because aid has become a politicized tool to stabilize

Afghanistan and Iraq as fragile states in the name of anti-terrorism, and aid is being

used as a strategy to appease communities and to win “hearts and minds”. Through

comprehensive approaches to stabilization, political, military and development has been

integrated as complimentary instruments which motivated military components be

used as security support to humanitarian assistance for providing security benefits to

populations affected by armed conflicts and peace keeping troops protection. As a

result, humanitarian agencies often find themselves caught up in a situation where they

are struggling to carry out their work according to humanitarian principles of


“humanity, impartiality, independence and neutrality”, the victims’ right to assistance and

risk of harm, attacks and sometimes massacred by the opposing belligerents.

It is against the above background the researcher showed interest to investigate impacts

of the securitization of aids to Afghanistan through the involvement of international

assistance through civil-military cooperation and lessons to learn from. The study

findings covered the themes below:

I. Involvement of International Assistance

Why involvement of international assistance? International assistance focuses on the

questions of when or how military intervention is required to provide security and

safety for humanitarian aids delivery during armed conflicts can achieve humanitarian

benefits. The goal and objective of securitization of aid is to ensure for a safer world

during provision and delivery of humanitarian aids in emergency situations. Since the

11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the US has widely been seen as

providing global leadership and intellectual innovations in the development and

enforcement of both domestic and international counter-terror regimes (Naz K.

Modirzadeh, Dustin A. Lewis and Claude Bruderlein, 2011: 628). The US has implored

the doctrine of humanitarian interventions as a strategy to invade Afghanistan and Iraq

in the name of human rights protection and humanitarian assistance (Foley, 2008). As

being argued by Foley, the involvement of international assistance in Afghanistan and

Iraq was a result of coherence from human rights and humanitarian interventionists

under the theme, “Political Humanitarianism” implying a comprehensive approach

embracing civil-military relations in the provision of humanitarian aids to populations

in areas of armed conflict.


The Al Qaeda attack of 11 September 2001 against the United States placed Afghanistan

at the centre of international politics. Al Qaeda and the Taliban was defined as war of

terror, all media was used widely to mobilize and enrollment for state government allies

to form the coalition to overthrow the Taliban from Afghanistan and in 2001 they were

ousted out of most parts of the country (Joint Evaluation Report Humanitarian Aids to

Afghanistan, 2001-5:15). It is comparatively true to state that humanitarian interventions

to Afghanistan and Iraq occurred as a result of the concern for humanity aimed at

serving two purposes:

Manipulation of humanitarian work for political ends, and

Vehicle to fulfill political agendas of states and international organizations operating

in humanitarian crises with objective to rule over and control state governance and

development affairs (Kellenberger, 2010).

Why the use of security force was necessary? Security force was used to support

and protect relief operations and establishing a broader climate of security for civilian

populations, humanitarian aids workers, foreign troops and state military institutions.

Though the correct interpretation of security and stability means living in a safety and

peaceful environment, this has always been used to satisfy the hidden political agendas

of donor organizations and the state government in Afghanistan. Yet security and

stability is supposed to be promoted through impartial, needs based humanitarian aid,

poverty focused development aid, owned by and responsive to its beneficiaries, and

independent of donors’ immediate military and security objectives (Report by Oxfam,

2011).

By the introduction and use of security force in provision of humanitarian aids to

Afghanistan, the western donor governments focuses on the implementation of


stabilization approach to directly influence the national state infrastructure as a means

of seeking to combat internal insurgencies in spite of weak governance, instability and

poverty threatening their strategic interest for global peace and security. This has

evidently been cited from the result of the incidence of 9/11 attack on the US when

NATO member states joined Americans to fight against terrorism pledging that “an

attack on one ally would be treated as an attack on all” (Survival, 2000-2; Vol. 43).

Therefore the involvement of security force in Afghanistan was the outworking of UN

integration theory for coherence among UN humanitarian organizations, agencies and

states in fragility to achieve peace goals through integration of political and

development objectives (Metcalfe, et al., 2011). And it operated on the premise of

political, humanitarian and development actions through the combination of political,

military and civilian efforts aimed at providing holistic approaches to violent conflicts

by responding to early post conflicts where violence is ongoing (Mcloughlin, C., 2012).

And the integration of comprehensive approach brought on board humanitarian

organizations and military forces where each actor having different mandates; while

humanitarian organizations would seek to provide life-saving assistance to affected

populations based on assessed needs following humanitarian principles of humanity,

neutrality, impartiality and independence, whereas the military actors were deployed

with a political or military objective to provide protection of civilians, NGO staff and the

troops .

What were the consequences of militarized intervention? Although humanitarian aid

should be delivered according to the humanitarian principles of humanity,

independence, impartiality and neutrality based on the needs of crisis-affected

populations; but with the NATO engagement in Afghanistan, the concept of the so-


called “comprehensive approach” was developed, and integration of development and

humanitarian activities with military and diplomatic measures was used as a way of

trying to stabilize armed conflicts (Collinson and Elhwary, 2012). However,

implementing comprehensive approach interventions had some challenges, for example,

the use of humanitarian assistance to achieve broader stabilization objectives to win

hearts and minds led to confusion about humanitarian aid, securitization of aid and

stabilization of aid, citing as example; the provision of health and nutrition services by

Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT s) there was confusion about whether and to

what degree humanitarian aid agencies were affiliated with the military impacting

negatively on the humanitarian actor’s perceived neutrality, the safety of humanitarian

workers and the capacity of NGOs to address needs, in spite of the shrinking

humanitarian space (Rubenstein, L., 2010).

Firstly, the implications of such confusions have been reported about the insufficient

access to health facilities by Afghans according to the Afghanistan Health Cluster

because health workers and facilities had come under attack following PRTs

engagement (IASC, 2011). Secondly, lack of clear separation between NGO activities

and state actions subjected aid workers to the risks of attack, harm or massacre referred

to as “war against terrorism”, notably in the Helmand province, where security strategies

implemented by states in the name of the fight against terrorism have had an adverse

impacts on the security of aid workers and aid operations (BAAG, 2008). Thirdly, fight

against “terrorism” has also led to a tendency of sanctioning of humanitarian aids

provided in the areas where non-state actors have been designated as terrorist operating

groups. Though many humanitarian organizations inevitably found themselves

working in sensitive areas where they could easily be in contacts with actors that may be


suspected to have terrorist affiliations in Southern Afghanistan, yet most aid activities

were criminalized making the implementation of humanitarian action in such areas had

become incompatible with international humanitarian NGO’s mandate and duty to give

impartial help to affected persons needing assistance, especially in such conflict-affected

contexts where populations are particularly rendered most vulnerable as a result of the

armed conflicts (Collinson and Elhawary, 2012; 10-11).

II. Civil military cooperation

To what extent was the interaction between civilian and military actors? The

insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq involved a “comprehensive approach”, utilizing the

full range of civilian and military capabilities to stabilize both countries being termed

the “Solider-diplomat”. The cooperation operated under the leadership of civilian

politicians in carrying out the humanitarian tasks as their leadership provided

supervisory roles and monitoring of humanitarian activities during interventions. This

policy action was taken as a cover to dispel the perceptions of the host populations

being under military occupation, while the civilian leadership adapts to the evolving

situation on the ground, listening and responding to military advice to ensure the

government policies are not compromised by the military for the sake of expediency

(ibid, 63).

The civil-military cooperation used intervention structural approach , so called 3Ds,

“Defense, Diplomacy and Development” as the strategic ways in which the US-led military,

NATO, civilian politicians and humanitarian organizations cooperated to conduct peace

missions and provision of humanitarian aids in Afghanistan and Iraq (Goodhand, J. and

D. Hulme, 1999). Based on their experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, in 2008 the US

army produced field manual named “FM-3-07, Stability Operations” which provided


policy guidelines to direct the coherence of actors within the cooperation about the roles

of military as being for defense, diplomacy and development aid. The guidelines also

spelled out the areas of US-led military and NATO-led Provincial Reconstruction Teams

involvement to cover emergency provision of essential services as well, where necessary

to oversee the political responsibilities of the transition of governance into civil authority

(IRIN, 2009). The civil military cooperation established in Afghanistan (CIMIC) played

a central role in the coalition efforts to win the hearts and minds of the local populations.

Importance of CIMIC was demonstrated by the formation of Joint Civil Military

Operations Task Force (CJMOTF) composed from the several humanitarian agencies

who participated in the Coalition Governing Council organized and hosted by US

Central Command at Tampa, Florida to be the overall overseer of CIMIC operations on

the ground. Several Coalition Humanitarian Cells (CHLCS) in key urban centers across

the country were set up to perform the specified roles:

To win the hearts and minds among the Afghan populations,

To secure support of the local communities by showing the benign face of the

Coalition,

To jumpstart the reconstruction efforts,

To gain positive publicity for the war efforts in the United States (Sedra, 2004:5).

For the interaction and dialogue between international military and peacekeeping forces

and the humanitarian community to be effective every actor was expected to hold out

the possibility for better protection outcomes for affected populations; meaning, in a

situation in which these groups operated are increasingly complex, and the threats to

civilians bears multiple and dynamic impacts, ranging from deliberate killing, attacks

against civilian targets such as schools and clinics, rape of women and girls, recruitment


of child soldiers and a failure of accountability for perpetrators and support for victims

(UN Report, 2012).

What role did each actor play? The relationship between the military and

humanitarian actors in times of armed conflict provides distinctive roles, which roles are

based on humanitarian and political aspects of the relationship, the cultural differences

between the humanitarian and military worlds and persistent issues that the two groups

must resolve at the field level. These roles interfaced through coordination domain to

avoid duplication of efforts, the sensitivities of exchanging security information, or the

basic “reach out” efforts to overcome the challenges of both actors that share the same

working environment (ICRC, 2004).

The actors had to work through relationship referred to as “Civil-military cooperation”

(CIMIC) and “Civil affairs” (CA), the names used by NATO and the United States

Armed Forces (USAF), respectively, to describe those non-combat functions of their

armed forces that deal with civilian functions, or involve armed forces taking on tasks

typically performed by civilian authorities, NGOs or international humanitarian

organizations (Meinrad Studer, 2001, pp. 391-392). Two major approaches have become

prominent driving factors during the implementation of the cooperative and integrated

efforts of achieving securitization and stabilization objectives of the participating

humanitarian actors and they are:

NATO Comprehensive Approach which embraced the cooperation and coordination

among all actors to include host governments, international non governmental

organizations, states, agencies, NGOs and private sector,

UN Integrated Approach which involved civil institutions of politicians, NGOs,

agencies, host government and local leaders, and military institutions consisting of


military force of the host government and external military force from member states

(MIHA I: 78-79).

It is therefore indicative to confirm that the cooperation between the civil and military in

fragile states of Afghanistan and Iraq was expected to address three keys issues:

Human rights abuses on the civilian populations,

Mitigation or reductions of threats and vulnerabilities of civilian populations, and

In longer term, building a protective environment, including strengthening the

capacities of the host states and local communities (ibid).

What was the impact of the cooperation? The protection of civilians is the most

important component of international stabilization strategies, such as in Afghanistan,

the concept of human security underpins many stabilization approaches, and

stabilization interventions commonly seek to reduce violence and instability, including

in those forms which impact civilian populations (HPG and UNHCR, 2010). It is

imperative to take note that, it was the result of the attack of 9/11 on the United States

which has brought western powers into confrontational war with the Jihadist insurgents

in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia (HPG Policy Brief 48:3). Greater funding

was channelled to humanitarian organizations working in fragile states like Afghanistan

and Iraq with donors’ focus drawn primarily onto early recovery, reconstruction and

development aid programmes other than funding needs based humanitarian assistance.

Even the troops and military actors on the ground have been engaged heavily on direct

delivery of relief and reconstruction activities to legitimize their presence while civil

military coordination increased as well dominated politicized and militarized aid

delivery referred to as “forcible humanitarian interventions”, a guise to provide defense of


populations at risk including protecting civilians and responding to their life saving

needs (Wheeler, 2002).

The interface of the civil and military cooperation has been used as strategic tool for

achieving global dominance of developing countries by the western powers in

countering insurgency through political and militarized structures as we can follow

from the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, humanitarian assistance and reconstruction

has increasingly been seen as a key means by which to consolidate a new government

and improve overall stability in a post conflict context (The London Conference on

Afghanistan, “The Afghanistan Compact”, Jan. 2006). The involvement of high profiled

military in the bundles of reconstruction and security functions in Afghanistan or Iraq

posed insecurity limits and threats to the populations living within areas of conflicts,

relief aids workers and development actors which impact backfired with consequences

detrimental to both humanitarian and stability goals, the same paper argued. Many

humanitarian agencies suffered security risks from the insurgents by having their aids

workers killed and forcing many humanitarian organizations to spent bigger percentage

of aid funds to financing security efforts to protect populations and agencies staff

working in areas of conflicts other than using the funds on the planned interventions

while other agencies withdrew from Afghanistan following the targeted murder of their

staff (Fabrice Weissman, MSF, 'Military Humanitarianism: a Deadly Confusion', 16

Dec. 2004).

III. What lessons can be learned? Looking backward to move forward.

What are the positive lessons from the humanitarian militarized intervention? The

events of 9/11 reinforced the national and international responsibilities of humanitarian

actors to rethink about the stability and security of populations, aids workers and


humanitarian organization staff trapped in areas of armed conflicts because the

situations had presented them with both the threats of global instability and insecurity

and opportunity for eliminating and containing identified sources of instability and

terrorists groups of global instability and insecurity in Afghanistan and Iraq; pre

empting cooperative and coordinated efforts of humanitarian organizations, agencies

and states by joining the comprehensive network of international humanitarian actors to

ensure global governance and expansion of capitalist development through political and

social conditions necessary for recovery, reconstruction, development aid and peace

building (ibid). The stabilization strategy has been used as force multipliers to

supplement military interventions aimed at winning the hearts and minds of

populations as well as bridging the gap between the government and the people in

Afghanistan; through the relationships among military institutions, civil organizations

and state governments to achieve the political and military objectives. The donors used

civil military interactions to as strategy to manipulating and influencing humanitarian

activities and state governance (Barakat, et al., 2010).

The cooperation and integration of political and military components in humanitarian

interventions was brought on board and endorsed by international organizations,

individual state agencies, NGOs, private sector and host government to ensure good

governance, rule of law and local ownership through collective efforts in order to

achieve stability and security of populations and peacekeeping troops within fragile

states (Metcalfe, et al., 2011).

What are the key issues brought about by securitization of humanitarian intervention?

The comprehensive approach in the context of Afghanistan has been used as a cross

ministerial interagency approach in fighting the insurgency. This approach embraces a


variety of measures including political, economic and development strands as

comprehensive strategy in state building. The goal and objective of the comprehensive

approach is to involve all elements of power: military, diplomatic and economic efforts

of all parties of humanitarian organizations, civilian politicians, international agencies,

host government and donor countries to help in developing the capacity of the Afghans

in ensuring good governance, rule of law, stability and security of civilian populations,

aids workers and peace troops (Metcalfe, et al., 2011). The stabilization approaches in

post 9/11 reinforced close relationship between UN and NATO as well raised platform

to:

Address poverty in early conflict cycle by tackling issues of instability and insecurity

comprehensively,

Ensure for peace and safety of civilian populations and humanitarian aids workers

in fragile states like Afghanistan and Iraq,

Coherently integrate humanitarian, development, political and military

interventions in aids operations (Collinson, et al., 2010).

Humanitarian interventions have been influenced by political ideology even in

circumstances when something seemingly non political is demonstrated in giving out

relief aids to war victims; elements of domination and control on host government

structures has come into play, especially when there is no balance in relationship

between political and humanitarian interventions or lack of clear distinction of

relationship between military and civilian humanitarian actors, the result has always

been wastage of lives and resources in spite of all efforts invested to address the

humanitarian crises (Pierre Perin, 1998). This has been evidently true about the

involvement of politicization and militarization of humanitarian aids in Afghanistan


which did not yield positive impacts as a result from the militarized aid approach aimed

at winning the loyalty of Afghans through provision of aid. All the efforts was directed

to use aid as “Weapons System” to generate quick results, have achieved very little

lasting results since the military intervention was not directed towards alleviating the

poverty caused by the armed conflicts in the country but larger percentage of donor

funds was used to maintain the military legitimate presence in this war dominated

fragile state which had been under armed conflict for nearly the last 30 years. Very little

attention was given to address the underlying causes of poverty and repair of

destructions brought about by armed conflict including the resultant disorder in the

entire country.

How relevant is militarized humanitarian interventions today? Securitization of

humanitarian aids is joint operations involving combination of civil and military

interventions with the goal and objective of providing security and safety to the

populations caught up in the humanitarian traps, humanitarian aid workers, agencies

staff and peace keeping troops against trans-national and domestic threats through short

term security promotion (Barakat, 2010). Which means securitization of humanitarian

aids is primarily the innovation of stabilization entailing cooperation and integration

approaches of civil-military interventions during the provision and delivery of

humanitarian aids to populations in situations of humanitarian emergencies.

And securitization of humanitarian aids is useful, relevant and applicable during

humanitarian emergencies today due to:

Ongoing insurgency in the country within the fragile states with example being

Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia,


Instability and insecurity threatening the lives of civilian populations, aids workers

and peace keeping troops in fragile states,

Weak governance, poverty and under development brought about as a result of

insurgencies in the host state,

Ongoing occurrence of insurgencies posing as global threat to peace, stability and

security for all,

Fragile states hosting and sponsoring Taliban militias or terrorist groups like Al

Qaeda in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan and Al Sabaab in Somalia.

Therefore securitization of aids has become part and parcel of stabilization operations

which is always short term interventions connected to liberal peace building initiatives

to more transformative agendas linked to power holding elites designed to promote

conditions for meaningful security and development after a political settlement in the

states affected by fragility.

III. Conclusion.

According to the above study findings, securitization of aids has become the ideal

protection necessity in exceptional cases of humanitarian emergencies where civilian

populations and aid workers need physical protection and when innocent people are

being killed or driven away from their homes of origin in great numbers by local militias

and insurgents. The research student do contend to the policy of integration and

cooperation which advocates for facilitation of humanitarian action through

participation of national and international actors in order to effectively achieve the goal

of saving lives, protecting human rights and building sustainable livelihoods of

populations in countries of armed conflict and political instability due to continued

humanitarian emergencies. Which means for humanitarian action to effectively achieve


the intention to provide humanitarian assistance to populations affected by armed

conflict, insurgency and political instability in countries within the regions being

declared by UN Security Council as states in fragility, the principle of securitization of

aids through external military engagement, referred to as “security force” becomes

paramount.

From the study research, it is implicitly true that security force used in Afghanistan was

commendable efforts to support and protect relief operations and civilian populations,

humanitarian aids workers, foreign troops and state military institutions to ensure

effective delivery and receipt of humanitarian aids. However, the study also learned of

the unbecoming side of the securitization of aids in conflict zones where security force is

involved in the provision of aids during emergencies and state of fragility like

Afghanistan which puts the civilian populations, aids workers, foreign troops and

government military institutions to risks from the attacks of the belligerents which often

times forced many international organizations to withdraw prematurely. Another

blurring side about the securitization of aids in Afghanistan was the incidence of the

confusion to distinguish whether humanitarian aid agencies was affiliated to military

institutions because of the high risks and frequency of attacks from the belligerents

threatening the safety of civilian populations and aids workers as a result from the

involvement of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in the provision of health

and nutrition services in Helmond province.

The study also realized the complexity of humanitarian emergencies warranting for the

inception of new humanitarian action strategy used to guide humanitarian operations in

Afghanistan referred to as “Comprehensive Approach” involving all actors to include

civilian politicians, military institutions, international organizations, aids agencies,


NGOs and host government structures in carrying out the humanitarian tasks. The

cooperation between civilian and military interactions was aimed at providing

comprehensive humanitarian interventions expected to provide safety, protection and

welfare of all stakeholders on board due to the presence of armed conflict, insurgency,

instability and fragility such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan and Syria to

mention but a few.

The interface of actors within the cooperation involving the civil and military

relationship underpinned distinguished roles in the implementation of humanitarian

action; to civilian political leaders, they supervise and monitor humanitarian activities

within their areas of jurisdiction while to the military force, they guide humanitarian

operations as well provide security services to civilian populations, aids workers, field

military personnel, and government military institutions in fragile states. The impact of

the civil and military cooperation entails greater funding being channelled through

military structures with the aim to reduce violence and instability by primarily focusing

on early recovery, reconstruction and development aids programmes other than funding

needs based humanitarian assistance pre-empting direct engagement of troops and

military actors on the delivery of relief and reconstruction activities to legitimatize

military presence in Afghanistan.

The study report also identified some valuable lessons any humanitarian practitioners

and policy makers would want to learn about the involvement of military force today in

the humanitarian interventions during humanitarian emergencies to take note that:

The concept about the use of military force on the team of humanitarian actors

stemmed from the incidence of the September 9/11 on the USA attack by Taliban

terrorists who are regarded and treated by all humanitarian actors as the potential


threat to global peace, national and regional stability,

Involvement of military force on the team of humanitarian actors supports

comprehensive efforts of international humanitarian organizations to contain and

eliminate any identified sources of instability and terrorist groupings which threaten

global peace, security and stability of any states across the world,

Bringing military force on the team of humanitarian actors incorporated militarized

ideology into political objectives with cross cutting goal to ensure good governance,

rule of law and influencing local ownership of humanitarian interventions through

collective efforts of military institutions, civil society organizations and state

government structures to foster and forge the stability and security for civilian

populations, aids workers, national and foreign troops and host governments in

fragile states like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia,

Inclusion of military force in humanitarian interventions is cross ministerial

interagency approach with the objective to overpower and overthrow the fighting

insurgents in the states of fragility, which approach involves engagement of political,

economic and development strands through power influence of all humanitarian

actors there in.

The study finally agreed to the fact that securitization of humanitarian aids serves the

primary objective of involving the presence of military force during humanitarian

emergencies which has become international policy framework adopted and subscribed

to by international organizations and agencies focusing on stabilization as new strategy

to govern and guide operations of humanitarian interventions in countries where there

is humanitarian crises to ensure peace, safety, stability and protection for all

humanitarian actors (civilian populations, aids workers, national government


institutions and foreign military personnel), good governance, rule of law and

observation of human rights and provision of security support during implementation

of development activities aimed at building livelihoods of citizens affected by armed

conflict and insurgencies.


Key Reference 1. Naz K. Moderzadeh, Dustin A. Lewis and Claude Burderlein, Humanitarian

engagement under counter-terrorism: a conflict of norms and policy landscape (Vol. 93: 883, 2011)

2. Coner Foley, The Thin Blue Line: How Humanitarianism Went to War (London: Version,

2008). 3. Joint Evaluation Report Humanitarian Aids to Afghanistan, 2001-5:15 4. Mcloughlin, C., 2012 Topic Guide on Fragile States (Governance and Social

Development Resource Centre, University of Birmingham, UK). 5. Sarah Collinson and Samir Elhawary, Humanitarian space: a review of trends and issues,

(HPG Report 32, April 2012). 6. Conor Foley, Humanitarian engagement under counter terrorism (Claude Bruderlein,

2011). 7. Jonathan Goodhand, Aiding violence or building peace? The role of international aid in

Afghanistan (Third World Quarterly, Vol. 23: No 5, pp 837–859, 2002). 8. Meinrad Studer, The ICRC and civil-military relations in armed conflict (Page 391-

392, 2001).

9. Victoria Metcalfe, Simone Haysom and Stuart Gordon, Trends and challenges in

humanitarian civil military coordination: a review of literature (HPG Working Paper, 2012).

Documents

MIHA Module 1 Assignment