Protection of civilians is now central to most peace support missions. Commonly, protection issues are a component of a more expansive framework that incorporates not only physical protection but also protection of human rights, ensuring that the rule of law is maintained and ensuring that humanitarian and other workers have freedom to operate within the mission area.
Although the protection mission is central, it is not generally done well; a point demonstrated by a wide body of analysis by scholars and practitioners alike. The reasons for this revolve around confusion over the concept, cultural differences within and between those carrying out the protection mission and those being protected, and because of the general complexity of the issue.
One thing is clear though. If protection is to be ensured to the vulnerable and those who support them there have to be close engagements between all who are responsible for providing the protection. These engagements are between civil, police and military actors, between international agencies and the host government, between non-government and government actors and between the UN and any other force (a regional force for example) that may be operating within the area.
This range of actors means that any concept of engagement is problematic. Although interdependence is inevitable, engagement rather than partnership (with its connotations of overall common agreement) is perhaps all that can realistically be expected. Nonetheless, in this task, partnership is to be preferred to simple engagement.
There is little practical guidance about how to partner for protection. The 2008 United Nations’ document United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Principles and Guidelines merely observes that coordination is important and that partnering activities must be mainstreamed into the conduct of core mission activities. That thought was reinforced in 2009: ‘partnership can be strengthened through clear political strategy and direction; cohesive mission planning and management’.
Despite these exhortations, there are still few internationally agreed conventions or guidelines for protection. In the absence of universal guidelines peacekeepers have developed their own mission-specific understandings.
Partnerships are difficult. The reasons for this are various. Some actors prefer to be able to operate autonomously while others reject any role for the armed forces in humanitarian protection. In this world view there is no requirement for partnerships between civil and military actors, even if there will inevitably be a relationship of some kind.
Ideally, however, relationships should be as close to being partnerships as possible. The implications of this is that the relationship will be close, perhaps collaborative rather than cooperative with the underlying assumption being that the closer the relationship the more likely it is that civilians will actually be protected.
Effective protection demands partnership between the actors, and partnerships are most effective when they are established before they are needed. A clear and agreed plan is needed, there must be close dialogue between the outside partners to ensure they have a common understanding of the concepts and issues at stake and to ensure that they are using the mandate language in a common way, and the intervening group must have sufficient resources to achieve its protection mandate. Ideally, the partners would train together before the mission is established. Once the mission is concluded there must an evaluation and partner understandings and processes verified. The results of the post-mission analysis should then inform our understanding of what might be needed for future such missions.
Clearly, if the international community wants to be proactive rather than reactive in ensuring effective protection in times of need then it needs to develop the concepts and approaches earlier rather than later. If this does not occur some outcomes are more likely than others. Civilians caught in conflict will continue to suffer, the world will continue to debate how best to respond and authoritative figures will continue to issue media releases asserting the need to do something. The international community can do better than that.
Jim Rolfe is the Centre’s Deputy Director on secondment from the New Zealand Ministry of Defence where he was Principal Adviser, Strategic Policy.
This Civil-Military Commentary represents the views of the author and does not necessarily represent the view of the Asia Pacific Civil-Military Centre of Excellence or the view of the Australian Government.
No comments yet.