Mixing Aid with Military

An interesting article in Slate Magazine from the Washington Post appeared this week, and continues my discussion on the mixing of military and civilian organizations in humanitarian aid work.

As per previous posts (namely the one where I went on and on about the humanitarian code of conduct vs. the USG plans to implement SPOT), I do not agree with the blurriness that continues between where military ends and the humanitarian work begins. This article, written by Anna Huskarska from the International Rescue Committee in Afghanistan further highlights the problems facing aid agencies in even receiving credit for their work or their committment to the communities and countries in which they operate.

Huskarska writes of a school opening of the CAI (famous from the book "Three Cups of Tea") depicted by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times in Aghanistan shows how the hard work of agencies can often be used as a means to show the "good donations" (=work) of the donors - and now in many cases in post-conflict settings, the military. This associations leads one to believe that without the US government (or any other donor agency)secular schools for children would not be built (and everything will go to hell in a handbag!), ignoring the longstanding relationships and commitment of the community and the aid agency to the project and the area.

This is not to say that some credit for donation is not due to a donor. However, activities such as this should be more of a celebration of the community rather than the aid aganecy or the donor agency - and it should most certainly not include the military.

The Afghanistan experience parallels that of Iraq, where military representative from Provincial Reconstruction Teams are often present at events. This gives the impression to the local community that none of this was possible without "us giving you freedom". If the military goes away - so do all these nice projects. Scary.

To move away from this, strict policies can be put in place to ensure that this association is not made. Low profile security in dangerous areas, strict rules about "no guns" (which are also applied to your donor), and refusal to work with the military (including PRTs). This helps to distance an agency from these associations, and to quote the title of the article - give "credit where credit's due".