This Civil-Military Commentary is adapted from a presentation given by the Executive Director of the Asia Pacific Civil-Military Centre of Excellence, Major General Michael G. Smith AO (Retd), to participants of the Civil-Military Interaction Workshop (CMIW) at the Australian Emergency Management Institute at Mount Macedon in Victoria on 10 March 2011.
Civil-military effectiveness is highly dependent on establishing networks and building trust. People are the central tenet of civil-military endeavours, as strategic direction and operational effectiveness rely principally on people and their knowledge. Civil-military practitioners are certainly assisted by policies, guidelines and doctrine, but do not exist simply to play a supporting role to these doctrinal instruments.
There are several key components of civil-military effectiveness.
Multiagency understanding is the key to improved civil-military-police interaction. This does not mean that the various civilian, police and military actors should have common positions on all issues, or that they should always necessarily be in agreement. Instead all the actors must understand and appreciate respective agency positions and cultures, and operate within these boundaries. Each organisation has specific skills, strengths and weaknesses, and ‘clever’ civil-military leaders can appreciate these differences to apply the most appropriate tool to each situation. Five concepts apply to the broader environment of the civil-military professionals. These are:
- Chaos, which is the kernel of conflicts and disasters. As such, civil-military professionals needed to retain an open mind and be flexible in crafting options and responses. Each conflict or disaster demands its own solution, and the most effective solution almost always rests with local leaders and communities who must be fully engaged in shaping any response.
- Change is constant within civil-military affairs, and leaders need knowledge to anticipate and lead this change. Concepts of civil-military effectiveness in conflict and disaster management have changed remarkably over the last decade. One overarching change has also been the recognition of the nexus between security and development and between the trilogy of peacemaking-peacekeeping-peacebuilding, coupled with the willingness of States to more closely integrate civil-military capabilities to alleviate suffering in disasters.
- The complexity of conflicts and disasters is illustrated by the many local and international actors, most with differing mandates. One such example is the complex and multifaceted nature of the United Nations and its constituent organisations. Ultimately, however, political will drives the quality of disaster and conflict responses and it is these political realities which determine the ‘art of the possible’ by setting the boundaries and limitations within which civil-military leaders can operate.
- Optimising coordination is a key requirement for civil-military leaders in conflicts and disasters and is ultimately a shared responsibility. In most situations, military commanders must guard against assuming ownership of civil activities that cannot be sustained for the long haul. In non-permissive environments there is a case for the military to assume temporary civil responsibilities, particularly in the establishment of security and the rule of law, but these should revert to civil leadership as soon as practicable.
- Understanding the cultures in the host nation and the different cultures of the various civil-military actors are essential factors for success. Success in response operations is dependent on the willingness and commitment of civil-military leaders to understand the range of cultures comprising each disaster and conflict situation, including the cultures of the host nation, agencies, donors and actors.
All civil-military leaders must embrace the ‘principle of distinction’ in civil-military practice. In particular, they must embody a clear understanding of the distinction between ‘combatant’ and ‘non-combatant’, between ‘humanitarian’ and ‘military’, and between ‘development’ and ‘military quick-impact’ projects. The military can never be humanitarian workers. Military and police commanders and humanitarian actors require a good understanding of international humanitarian law, refugee law and human rights law, and must promote this knowledge as an essential civil-military capability.
Preparedness in civil-military relationships is essential. Preparedness not only relates to the ability to respond after the event, but increasingly to apply civil-military capabilities to conflict prevention and disaster risk reduction. The practice of learning and applying lessons must be adhered to.
Regardless of race, religion or culture, women are the single greatest asset of civil-military effectiveness. In so many cultures, women are the real peacemakers, the focal point within families, and the key means to achieve poverty reduction and sustainable livelihoods. Any civil-military response in conflicts and disasters must understand and appreciate the role played by women in fragile states and the consequent need for more women in leadership positions within their forces.
Protection of Civilians (POC) is a quintessential example of the need for civil-military effectiveness. Evidence of this is the fact that since 1999 there have been 10 UN-mandated missions specifically tasked to protect civilians. Guidelines, doctrine and initial POC training packages are emerging but more must to be done to achieve better civil-military collaboration and make POC a reality.
The final aspect of civil-military effectiveness is the often forgotten priority of the host nation. Planning and decision-making is too often dominated by international actors without sufficient consultation with, and ownership by, the host nation. Despite the plight of the local population being the raison d’être for the intervention, the local cultures often becomes the ‘voiceless majority’. Civil-military leaders must identify the needs of the host nation and invest in capacity-building simultaneously from the top-down (through the host government) and the bottom-up (by developing local communities).
These are simple solutions. Unfortunately they are not recognised or practised uniformly by the international community as it responds to conflict and disaster overseas. Until it does, we will continue to operate at a less effective level than we might otherwise. The losers will be those who are most affected by conflicted and disaster: civilians generally; women; children; the poor; and the disadvantaged.
Lyndon McCauley is an advisor in the Centre’s Multiagency Program.
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.