Security in Afghanistan
Afghanistan Blog | 31st October 2007
Security management for organisations like War Child, which operate in Afghanistan, is a very serious issue. But it is complicated by the blurring of the lines between what is military delivered assistance and what is assistance that is delivered through neutral agencies such as NGOs.
For example, the NATO led foreign military force uses Provincial Reconstruction Teams that are detachments of soldiers, which include private contractors, who build schools, roads, wells and so on. It’s a tactic designed to win hearts and minds on the one hand – very much a military concern - while supporting the reconstruction and stability of the country on the other.
But these two agendas don’t always sit together very comfortably.
The massive increase in violent attacks on NGO workers in Afghanistan might, in part, be due to the confusion between humanitarian organisations and foreign military forces. There is a strong argument to suggest that the US led Coalition (Operation Enduring Freedom) – which has openly said it can ‘use’ humanitarian organisations as ‘force extenders’ for its own ends - has confused the distinction between military and humanitarian groups.
Between 2002 and 2005 the Provincial Reconstruction Teams actually wore plain clothes and used the same unmarked vehicles that organisations like War Child use. On this basis, how can local people and, indeed, insurgents tell the difference between NGOs and foreign forces?
In May 2004, the coalition forces distributed leaflets in southern Afghanistan which made it clear that if local communities did not provide information about the Taliban or Al Qaeda they would not receive any aid. Not only does this condemn the vast majority of the population who have no information to give to a lack of vital assistance, but it turns public opinion against those who provide humanitarian aid. Inevitably, the public will see those who provide humanitarian aid as political, and assume that NGOs are part of the military.
It might be argued that where the situation is too dangerous for NGOs to operate in then military forces should provide humanitarian assistance. Well, I get nervous when one of my own kids crosses the road. So perhaps if it’s that dangerous then soldiers building schools will be a waste of time because a parent would be witless to let their child go there. More than 120 schools that were rebuilt by the military have been burned down. No hearts and minds won, no reconstruction and stability achieved.
It is vital that NGOs have the humanitarian space to operate in. Our humanitarian space is defined by our independence and neutrality from military and political institutions. According to International Humanitarian Law, people have the right to receive aid on the basis of need alone, without it being subject to military or political conditions, intentions or interests. This is the premise from which all organisations like War Child start.
As the deaths in the number of aid workers due to violence in Afghanistan continues to rise – it has more than trebled since 2003 – ensuring our humanitarian space remains a major issue in managing our security and enabling the delivery of our work.
War Child invests heavily in its security management. Good security management should not inhibit an NGO from delivering relief or development support. It should enable it. So, as the boundaries of our humanitarian space continue to shift dramatically we must find new ways of constructing them for ourselves so that vital assistance can be delivered to those who need it, in a way that is safe, and does not exploit the humanitarian crisis for political or military agendas.
