Cimic

International Journal of Peace Studies, Volume 11, Number 2, Autumn/Winter 2006

THE PEACEBUILDING DILEMMA:

CIVIL-MILITARY COOPERATION IN STABILITY OPERATIONS

Volker Franke

Abstract

The nature of complex humanitarian relief, peacebuilding, and reconstruction missions increasingly

forces military and civilian actors to operate in the same space at the same time thereby challenging their

ability to remain impartial, neutral and independent. The purpose of this article is to explore the cultural,

organizational, operational, and normative differences between civilian and military relief and security

providers in contemporary stability operations and to develop recommendations for improving civilmilitary

cooperation (CIMIC) in order to aid the provision of more effective relief, stabilization, and

transformation operations.

At 8:30 a.m. local time on October 27, 2003 an ambulance packed with explosives

rammed into security barriers outside the Red Cross headquarters in Baghdad killing

some 40 people, including two Iraqi International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

employees, and leaving more than 200 wounded. The ICRC announced immediately

following the attacks withdrawal of its international staff from Baghdad, thereby reducing

vital programs and services to the most vulnerable segments of the population. The

October suicide bombing came two months after the August 19 attack on the United

Nations (UN) headquarters in Baghdad that left 23 people dead, including Sergio Vieira

de Mello, the Secretary General’s Special Representative in Iraq. Expressing horror and

consternation, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) head Mark Malloch

Brown surmised on the day of the August attack: “We do this [humanitarian relief] out of

vocation. We are apolitical. We were here to help the people of Iraq and help them

return to self-government. Why us?” (quoted in Anderson, 2004, p. 52).

The outrage felt by some members of the non-governmental organization (NGO)

community was not solely directed at the perpetrators, but also at the United States who

was held indirectly responsible for the deaths of the humanitarian aid workers. Members

of the UN and NGO communities felt they were endangered partly by the fact that the

U.S. was fighting a war that had not been authorized by the Security Council and that had

created a situation which had basically invited the attacks. Anderson (2004, p. 61)

6 The Peacebuilding Dilemma

explains, “those who attacked the UN were not mistaken as to their targets or what they

stood for. They understood both that the UN had stood aside from the US-led war but

also that the UN and NGO groups collectively are not neutral or impartial about the

nature of future peace.”

The attacks illustrate a growing dilemma in stability operations: post-conflict

reconstruction and humanitarian relief efforts force military and humanitarian actors to

operate in the same space at the same time challenging the bedrock principles that

characterized peacekeeping for more than half-a-century. Although the military has

consistently emphasized the need for “complementarity,” humanitarian organizations

have expressed concern about the impact of civil-military cooperation on their ability to

remain impartial, neutral, and independent in fulfilling their core tasks. As a result, the

lines between neutral peacekeeping and relief efforts and non-neutral peacebuilding and

reconstruction activities have become increasingly blurred, thereby raising dangers and

risks especially for civilian actors.

This article explores the cultural, organizational, operational, and normative

factors that shape the approaches of military and civilian nongovernmental (NGO) actors

to civil-military cooperation (CIMIC) in peacebuilding and stability operations. The

purpose of the analysis is to develop recommendations for improving civil-military

cooperation in order to aid the provision of more effective relief, stabilization, and

transformation operations. The first segment briefly recounts the evolution of

peacebuilding and illustrates the central problems inherent in civil-military cooperation

during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Next, the article examines more

closely the cultural, organizational, operational, and normative differences that hamper

coordination between civilian and military actors in the field. The analysis concludes

with a series of recommendations for how to improve civil-military cooperation and

enhance the effectiveness of international peacebuilding and reconstruction efforts.

The Evolution of Peacebuilding

Traditional peacekeeping during the Cold War was authorized under Chapter VI

of the UN Charter and most generally comprised the “imposition of neutral and lightly

armed interposition forces following a cessation of armed hostilities, and with the

permission of the state on whose territory these forces are deployed, in order to

discourage a renewal of military conflict and promote an environment under which the

underlying dispute can be resolved” (Diehl 1993, p. 13; see also Bellamy et al., 2004;

Goulding, 2003). The rapid rise in civil wars and ethnic strife in the decade following the

end of the Cold War and the desperate need for action to help the civilian populations

who were the targets of ethnic cleansing demonstrated the need for the international

community to go beyond peacekeeping and authorize peace enforcement operations

under Chapter VII of the UN Charter in order to compel compliance with international

Volker Franke 7

resolutions and sanctions and to “maintain or restore peace and support diplomatic efforts

to reach a long-term political settlement” (Department of the Army, 1994, p. 6).

In the early-to-mid 1990s it became apparent that humanitarian issues were

intrinsically connected to problems of peace and security. Security Council Resolution

794 (Somalia), for instance, authorized for the first time military intervention under

Chapter VII “i n order to establish a secure environment for humanitarian relief

operations.” With the number of complex emergencies rising, the United Nations

developed a peacebuilding approach integrating military and humanitarian action into a

series of sequential activities proceeding from observing the cease fire and assisting in

humanitarian relief and refugee resettlement to contributing to economic reconstruction,

social reconciliation and the restoration of essential government functions (Jeong, 2005;

Studer, 2001; Boutros-Ghali, 1995). At the heart of this approach is the simultaneous

control of violence at the interpersonal and intercommunal levels, the provision of the

basic needs of the suffering population, and, as needed, the planning for and monitoring

of reconciliation and reconstruction efforts. It is in meeting these immediate challenges

that the effective interface between armed forces and civilian aid agencies becomes

centrally important, but also that the main tensions between the civilian and military

peacebuilding elements arise.

Since complex emergencies frequently require a combination of traditional

peacekeeping functions (e.g., the supervision and monitoring of cease-fires,

disarmaments, and demobilization and the overseeing of elections) and combat-defined

peace enforcement activities, peace-building or stability operations are oftentimes

referred to as “third-generation” peace operations that “more closely resemble the

original peace-keeping missions (in the sense that they enjoy the parties’ overall consent),

but also add something new in that they actively contribute to the rebuilding of state and

social structures” (Studer, 2001, p. 373). While military forces undertook civilian tasks

such as humanitarian relief and public administration by default and without a clear

strategy or concrete objectives in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, or East Timor until

civilian authorities were in a position to take over humanitarian and governing

responsibilities, successful peace-building in the future will depend increasingly on the

quality of collaboration among military forces, UN administration and civilian aid

agencies (Jeong, 2005).

Civil-Military Cooperation

Cooperation between the civilian and military elements involves integrating

traditional military capabilities into a collective response to human need. At the outset,

civilian and military actors share the long-term goal of promoting human security and

developing the conditions for societies marked by conflict to transition back to peaceful

and stable structures. Initially, civil-military relationships were formed in the field, when

8 The Peacebuilding Dilemma

troops stepped in to fill gaps in civilian capabilities. In response to the growing

complexity of operational requirements, states are increasingly recognizing the

intensifying working relationship between military and civilian actors and are now

developing their own doctrines specifying the nature of civil-military

...