Memorandum from the British Red Cross
BACKGROUND ON
THE BRITISH
RED CROSS
The British Red Cross helps people in crisis,
whoever and wherever they are. We are part of a global network
of volunteer based organisations that respond to conflicts and
natural disasters and assist people in crisis. We enable vulnerable
people in the UK and abroad to prepare for and respond to emergencies
in their own communities. And when the crisis is over, we help
them to recover and move on with their lives.
The British Red Cross (BRC) is part of the International
Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (the Movement), which comprises:
— The International Committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC),
— The International Federation of Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies (the Federation), and
— 186 National Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies worldwide.
THE BRITISH
RED CROSS
RESPONSE TO
THE INQUIRY
Key points
— It is vital that humanitarian organisations
continue to be able to advocate for and dispense neutral, impartial
and independent humanitarian aid to people in crisis on both sides
of ideological and geographical divides, irrespective of longer-term
goals such as peace, security and development.
— While the benefits of a comprehensive
approach, with joint planning between different UK Departments,
are clear, neutral humanitarian organisations must be allowed
to maintain a clear separation from any political or military
agenda the British Government may be pursuing.
— The British Government should reaffirm
its recognition of the unique nature of neutral and independent
humanitarian action, and a clear "division of labour"
between humanitarian and military actors with understanding and
clarification regarding mandates, roles and responsibilities.
— The British Government should also
reaffirm the special status and role of components of the Movement,
in particular, of National Societies, such as the British Red
Cross, as auxiliaries to the public authorities of their respective
countries in the humanitarian field. This has both benefits and
challenges in the context of the Comprehensive Approach.
Introduction
The press notice sets out the Inquiry's focus
on how far `UK military and non-military agencies work effectively
through a comprehensive approach with "commonly understood
principles and collaborative processes that enhance the likelihood
of favourable and enduring outcomes within a particular situation."'
(DSC press notice, 25 March 2009)
The Comprehensive Approach, including joint
planning and working across government departments, has clear
operational and strategic benefits. Likewise the continuing work
of the Stabilisation Unit (SU), and the engagement of SU, MoD,
DFID, and FCO personnel with the NGO-Military Contact Group, a
group chaired and hosted by BRC which meets quarterly, with the
express purpose of promoting dialogue and understanding, and exchange
of information between the UK armed forces, government and agencies
including the ICRC.
However, it is crucial that this improved political
and military coordination does not seek to co-opt neutral and
impartial humanitarian agency activities, which must remain clearly
distinct from broader political or military objectives. Experience
from humanitarian operations has shown that blurring this distinction
can have grave consequences for acceptance by and access to affected
populations, and the security both of aid workers and, critically,
the people they seek to help.
Neutral and independent humanitarian action
Humanitarian organisations including the Red
Cross adhere to principles of impartiality, independence and neutrality
to provide aid strictly on the basis of need, without regard to
other objectives and interests; the Movement refers to this as
Neutral and Independent Humanitarian Action (NIHA).
In practice, neutrality is a key tool, which
can enable humanitarian agencies to operate effectively on humanitarian
issues across all sides in a conflict, and to gain access to people
in crisis regardless of geographic or ideological boundaries.
This enables humanitarian agencies to work in areas others cannot
access, such as Baluchistan in Pakistan, in rural areas of Darfur,
and in the Vanni in Sri Lanka.
The MoD acknowledge the need for humanitarian
agencies to establish and maintain "humanitarian space"
in which to operate and the distinction between the role of humanitarian
actors and that of the military; and require commanders to disseminate
these concepts and manage relationships accordingly. (JDP 3-90,
April 2006) The MoD Joint Discussion Note on the Comprehensive
Approach describes the comprehensive approach as "a combination
of diplomatic, military and economic instruments of power, together
with an independent package of developmental and humanitarian
activity and a customised, agile and sensitive influence and information
effort." [author's emphasis] (JDN 4/05)
Stabilisation and the perception of neutrality
In the last 15 years, there has been an important
shift in military doctrine, whereby military missions are conducted
with a much broader political objective of stabilisation, nation
building, or "winning hearts and minds". As a result,
there are often attempts to "instrumentalise" humanitarian
aid and merge it with broader political objectives, including
joint planning. While our principles of impartiality and neutrality
will not prevent us from entering into dialogue with the military
and governments, and indeed this is entirely appropriate as part
of National Societies' role as auxiliary to the State (including
the medical services of the armed forces), this form of engagement
takes place with the understanding that humanitarian action will
remain distinct from any political agenda.
The loss of aid agency neutrality, real or perceived,
can have serious consequences for humanitarian access and security.
It is important to note that 2008 was the worst year on record
for aid worker safety with a 61% increase in the relative attacks
per numbers of aid workers in the field. The 2008 fatality rate
for international aid workers exceeds that of UN peacekeeping
troops (ODI HPG Policy Brief 34, April 2009). The perception of
some agencies as working together with western stabilisation forces
or even with the host government can impact on the security of
both aid workers and beneficiary populations, and can prevent
agencies working in certain areas (Caught in the Conflict, 2009).
In Afghanistan, where many NGOs work on state-building and developmental
issues such as reconstruction, development and advocacy in perceived
alignment with ISAF, opposition forces have, at times, labelled
certain humanitarian agencies and, importantly, recipients of
their aid, as legitimate targets.
For this reason, it is vital to ensure that
humanitarian agencies be allowed to continue to operate outside
political and military objectives—only by preserving their
neutrality can they continue to reach those most affected by conflict
across the world. Nevertheless, the British Red Cross recognises
and welcomes the important steps taken toward improved dialogue
and joined-up working between government departments in recent
years.
13 May 2009
|
