Civil-Military Working Paper 9/2010: The International Committee of the Red Cross and inter-agency interaction during armed conflict

Introduction

There will inevitably be overlap between the activities of independent humanitarian organisations, such as theInternational Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and integrated international coalitions – whether mandatedby the United Nations or otherwise – that are deployed into conflict affected countries. The mandates ofthese international integrated missions routinely cover areas that have traditionally been the responsibilityof the humanitarian sector. Integrated missions typically include components within their structures with responsibility to work in the humanitarian assistance and development sectors. However, international,coalition-driven missions often have specific timelines, political imperatives and specific, realistic objectives and tasks. Interaction and coordination between the international coalition and its integrated components and humanitarian actors operating independently in the context is critical. It is, however, important that independent actors are not only able to work in parallel to specific missions, but that they emerge unaffectedin terms of their relations, integrity and capacity to continue with the nation’s structures after such missions have departed the mission area.

The International Committee of the Red Cross

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been given a unique mandate by the international community to operate in situations of armed conflict. This mandate is derived principally from the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their two Additional Protocols of 1977. The ICRC is provided with further guidance in carrying out its mandate through resolutions of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, which are adopted at the International Conferences of States Parties to the Geneva Conventions, convened every four years.

The ICRC has an exclusively humanitarian mission: “to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance.” In fulfilling this mission, it conducts a broad range of activities, including inter alia: visiting prisoners of war, civilian interness and other persons detained in relation to armed conflict; providing emergency assistance to victims caught up in armed conflict; evacuating civilians and war wounded from conflict-affected areas; promoting and monitoring respect for international humanitarian law (IHL) during the conduct of hostilities; and working towards the development and faithful application of IHL rules and principles, generally.

The ICRC conducts its activities according to certain fundamental principles, which it shares with the other components of the Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC/RC) Movement (i.e. the National RC/RC Societies and the International Federation of the RC/RC). The three most important of these principles, from an operational perspective, are: (1) neutrality; (2) independence; and (3) impartiality. These principles reinforce the strictly humanitarian nature of its mission and impose limitations on the relationships the ICRC develops with governments, military forces and other international and humanitarian organisations.

To be effective during armed conflicts, the ICRC needs to operate in close proximity to the victims it strives to protect and assist. Access to these victims depends upon the ability of ICRC delegates to travel freely and in relative security to all areas of a conflict. In order to do this this, the ICRC, its mandate and operational activites must be accepted and respected by all parties/sides to the conflict, and the local population. Acceptance is critical to the success of its mission and requires the ICRC to establish contact and ongoing dialogue with all sides/parties/armed groups operating in these areas, to gain their trust and confidence. To accomplish, the ICRC must have the ability to operate independently of and be seen to be neutral from, all sides in an armed conflict. It cannot be perceived to be taking sides in a conflict, supporting a particular side or pursuing a political agenda; this is at the very core of ICRC operations.

A long history of experience in conflicts around the globe has shown that strict adherence to the principles of neutrality, independence and impartiality provides the ICRC with acceptance by the belligerents/parties, which in turn translates into safe access to the areas under their control (or where they are operating) so that assistance can be provided to the conflict victims in these areas. As a practical matter – for reasons of security – the ICRC practice is not go into an area unless contact is establishd and security assurances obtained from from all relevant parties/organisations/groups in the area.

ICRC’s guidelines on civil-military relations²

A relationship with armed forces is natural for an organization like the ICRC that works in situations of armed conflict. The ICRC recognises that the strategies and actions of the armed forces will have a critical impact on humanitarian action in situations of armed conflict. Regular contact and ongoing dialogue with military forces and armed groups is, therefore, a necessary and important feature of the ICRC’s operations around the world.

Following the end of the cold war in the 1990’s certain trends emerged, which raised several concerns for humanitarian agencies, including the ICRC. These trends continued in the decade following the events of 9/11, during the so-called War on Terror, and the concerns associated with them have been highlighted by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of the significant trends are discussed below.

Expanding roles for the military

The 1990’s saw the emergence of new and expanded roles for the armed forces. Governments began assigning their armed forces a role in humanitarian activities, given them responibility to respond to natural disasters, both domestically and abroad in third countries to provide humanitarian relief. Armed forces deployed under UN and other mandates are now routinely given responsibilities outside their tradional areas, and now routinely include responsibility for the protection of the civilian population and providing humanitarian assistance to the civilian population. These expanded responsibilities can blur the lines between military forces and humanitarian actors, and cause confusion in the eyes of the civilian population. The situation is made worse when military forces are deployed in situations where there are tensions or ongoing armed conflict. The overlapping roles and activities of the military and humanitarian actors in these circumstances threaten the perception of neutral, independent humanitarian action and challenge the concept of ‘humanitarian space’.

Comprehensive or ‘Whole of Government” (WOG) approaches to conflict management

The experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq have taught that conflicts cannot be won with military force alone; they have reinforced the need to combine all means at a government’s disposal – political, economic, military, development and humanitarian assistance – to achieve stabilisation. Multinational forces now regularly assume roles that go beyond providing security or engaging in combat, raising several concerns for humanitarian actors. Armed forces are increasingly active in roles typically filled by civilians. The distinction between humanitarian, political and military action becomes blurred when armed forces are perceived to be humanitarians, when civilians are embedded into military structures. There is a further risk that humanitarian action becomes subordinated to political and military action, creating the perception that humanitarian actors are merely tools within integrated approaches to conflict management (i.e. integrated political-military-humanitarian missions).

Development of Civil-Military Cooperation (CIMIC)/Civil Affairs (CA)³ military doctrines

Although the practice of ‘winning hearts and minds’ is not new, CIMIC/CA doctrines have seen dramatic development in recent years. Today’s CIMIC/CA doctrines are effectively an extension of the comprehensive WOG approach. Iraq and Afghanistan have reinforced the general trend of armed forces to add humanitarian assistance to their range of tools for winning the hearts and minds, or rewarding the cooperation of the civilian population. Providing assistance to the civilian population, or influencing the humanitarian and reconstruction efforts of others, is considered as a means of “force multiplication” or “force protection”. This risks the subordination of humanitarian assistance to military and political objectives. The assumption of a ‘common goal’ also damages the perception of humanitarian agencies who subscribe to a policy of neutral, independent humanitarian action (NIHA).

Afghanistan and Iraq as the benchmark for future conflicts

The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate the risks associated with the ‘comprehensive/integrated’ approach. The ICRC believes that, based on the lessons learned in these conflicts, political and military decision makers will pursue an even greater convergence of political and military action in future conflicts/operations. This presents an ongoing challenges for humanitarian actors like the ICRC, to preserve neutral, independent, humanitarian space, avoid being instrumentalised and manage perception issues.

The ICRC Guidelines on Civil-Military Relations (CMR) were developed in 2001, to address these concerns and the potential threats they posed to the ICRC’s humanitarian action. The CMR Guidelines have been reviewed and validated periodically, most recently to take into account the lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan. The CMR Guidelines includes the following main features:

Aim

The aim of establishing a structured dialogue between the ICRC and military forces is to ensure the safety of its staff and the recipient (civilian) populations, and to preserve the impartiality and most efficient use of available resources during the ICRC’s humanitarian action. The ICRC insists, however, that this engagement with military actors should not affect independent decision-making of humanitarian actors and should respect humanitarian principles.⁴

Framework

The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (RC/RC) Movement, along with the relevant (applicable) provisions of international humanitarian law, provide the general framework for defining the nature and scope of the ICRC-military relationship.

Relations within the International RC/RC Movement

Within the International RC/RC Movement, the ICRC seeks to exercise leadership regarding the policy and operational aspects of CMR in armed conflict. In particular, it provides clear directives for the relationship between National RC/RC Societies working as “Participating National Red Cross or Red Crescent Societies” (i.e. contributing to a RC/RC operation on foreign soil) and the military contingents of their respective countries. Should such a relationship be problematic in terms of respect for the RC/RC Movement’s fundamental principles, appropriate action will be taken by the ICRC, in accordance with the Movement’s  Statutes and the Seville Agreement.

Key concepts

In its dialogue with military authorities, the ICRC will seek to provide the military authorities with a better understanding of the importance the ICRC attaches to the following key concepts:

• The objective of ICRC’s humanitarian action is not to settle conflicts (or pursue a political agenda) but to save lives and protect human dignity. The ICRC humanitarian activities cannot in any way be subordinated to political and/or military objectives and considerations.
• There must be a clear distinction between the roles of the respective (humanitarian and military) actors in armed conflict. In this regard, the primary objective of the military should be, in the ICRC’s view, to establish and maintain security and to facilitate a comprehensive settlement of the conflict.
• The ICRC must maintain its independence of decision-making and action, while consulting closely with international military missions that are deployed in the same theatre of operations. There should be

consultation at every stage, at both strategic and operational levels.

Operational expectations of the ICRC

In its dialogue with the military, the ICRC seeks privileged access to and dialogue with, operational commanders at different levels (strategic, operational and tactical). The ICRC has clear expectations on what it hopes to achieve through its relationship with the military in situations of armed conflict. Although the emphasis will change depending on the specific context, the dialogue will generally include discussion on the following specific issues of concern:

• Access to victims in conflict-affected areas (protection and assistance);
• Detention conducted by military forces and armed groups (notification and access);
• Exchange of information (regarding security and the general situation);
• Potential ICRC medical support and assistance to the civilian population, including the treatment of war wounded, according to need; and
• ICRC’s mandate to conduct training of armed forces and disseminate IHL.

Limitations on cooperation

The ICRC’s position is limited by its fundamental principles – in particular the principles of Neutrality and Independence – which exclude closer cooperation with military forces or subordinating the ICRC’s humanitarian action to broader political goals in military interventions. The ICRC cannot be perceived to be associated with, supporting or on the same side as the military – or armed opposition groups – in a conflict.

Strategic dialogue with political and military policy-makers

The ICRC seeks to establish and maintain a dialogue with the political and military circles that formulate the policy for military intervention in emergencies arising from armed conflict. Particular attention is paid by the ICRC to engaging with the relevant agencies and bodies of the United Nations, NATO, the European Union and the African Union. The primary aim of this engagement is to promote the ICRC’s view of humanitarian action and, where necessary, foster and maintain contacts useful for operational cooperation and for enhancing respect for IHL.

Operational dialogue with military forces

The ICRC also fosters operational contact with military forces, at different levels, with a view to exchanging relevant information –subject to the constraints imposed by the principle of confidentiality. Where necessary, the ICRC assigns one or more persons to strategic and operational levell headquarters, to be in charge of liaison with the military. Delegates in the field will also seek to establish contact with operational commanders, at the tactical level.

Through this contact, the ICRC strives to avoid any ambiguity about its mandate and role, and tries to ensure, in particular, that military action does not impinge on the impartiality, neutrality and independence of its work. It further endeavours ensure that international humanitarian law is respected by military forces and armed groups in operational contexts.

Civil-Military Coordination (CIMIC), Civil Affairs (CA) and other coordination mechanisms

The ICRC may choose to participate in CIMIC/CA coordination mechanisms, depending on the context, and provided it has a practical benefit for ICRC operations (i.e. to coordinate movement along routes, at port facilities and airports). The ICRC is, however, concerned that these mechanisms and CIMIC/CA staff do not become obstacles to its operations, for example, by screening direct access to military commanders and their operational staff. It is worth noting that CIMIC/CA mechanisms have not been relevant to ICRC-military relations in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Use of military or civil defence assets (MCDA)

As a general rule the ICRC does not use military or civil defence assets, or resort to armed protection for its operations, including relief convoys, as this sets a dangerous precedent. This rule may, however, be waived in exceptional circumstances, as a last resort. Where the ICRC does use MCDA, (for example, because they are offered on conditions that provide a clear advantage or because comparable civilian assets are not available) it makes sure their use will not jeopardise the organisation’s status as neutral and impartial and is in keeping with its operational strategy and principles.

Protection of ICRC equipment and facilities by armed guards

The ICRC may use armed guards to protect of its equipment and facilities by armed guards in situations where such protection is considered indispensable, for example, where criminality poses a serious threat. The impact of such arrangements must, however, be balanced against the perception of the ICRC’s neutrality, independence and impartiality in the context.

The ICRC’s contribution to pre-deployment training and military exercises

Through its participation in pre-deployment training for units participating in overseas missions, the ICRC establishes contact with relevant military personnel. Through briefings and exercises the ICRC makes them aware of its mandate, presence and the scope of its operations in these contexts. These activities further provides the ICRC with the opportunity to reinforce IHL obligations applicable to the deploying nation/force – including the obligation to facilitate and/or provide humanitarian relief to affected populations in conflict areas – and highlight operational lessons learned from ICRC-military relations in the context. To this end, it establishes and maintains organisation-to-organisation relations with military headquarters and training establishments that prepare military and civilian personnel for such missions.

Conclusion

Generally, the ICRC adopts the same approach to its relations with military forces worldwide, in different situations of humanitarian concern. As a practical matter, however, there is greater flexibility in situations that do not have the added elements of armed conflict or political violence, such as natural disasters. In these situations, the ICRC may be willing to share more information and work more closely in a coordinated manner alongside other actors, including military forces and United Nations agencies. However, the ICRC is mindful that seemingly benign situations can change quickly and dramatically; the organisation is, therefore, careful not to put itself in a situation which could compromise its independence or neutrality (or the perception thereof) for current or future operations. In situations of armed conflict, such as Afghanistan, the ICRC will adhere strictly to the NIIHA approach and be much less willing to work cooperatively with military forces, the UN, other government and/or humanitarian agencies.

Endnotes

1. ←This paper is the written version of the presentation given during the Civil-Military Seminar 2010 (the second annual) as part of the session on Civil-Military-Police Relations during Conflict: Approaches to the United Nations, Regional Organizations’, the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement and the NGO Community. It is framed to fit the limited scope of the session and, as such, is not intended to represent a complete discussion of the ICRC’s policy on Civil-Military relations.
2. ←The discussion in this section draws from two articles that provide a comprehensive discussion of the ICRC policy in this area: (1) The ICRC and civil-military relations in armed conflict, Meinrad Studer, International Review of the Red Cross (IRRC) June 2001 vol. 83 no 842; and (2) Contemporary challenges in the civil-military relationship: Complementarity or incompatibility?, Raj Rana, IRRC September 2004 vol. 86 no 855.
3. ←The military terms Civil-Military Cooperation (CIMIC-NATO) and Civil Affairs (CA-US) refer to the doctrine and non-combat operations (including humanitarian and reconstruction assistance) conducted by armed forces in all contexts, including armed conflict. The ICRC has deliberately chosen the term Civil- Military Relations (CMR) to describe the relationship between humanitarian actors and multinational military missions in situations associated with armed conflict, and to distinguish such terms from military usage.
4. ←See also the SCHR Position Paper on Humanitarian-Military Relations, 2009. The content of the SCHR Position Paper is consistent with the ICRC’s CMR Guidelines; however, the ICRC may go beyond them in a given context, according to its unique approach to humanitarian action.