Mennonite
Central
Committee

Creating space for peaceful, lasting change

The 3D's: one non-government organization's perspective
April 13, 2006

Introduction

One morning this past March, Canadians woke to the news that a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan had been attacked by someone with an axe. Details were sketchy but it was reported that our soldier was meeting with village elders in Kandahar province when he was attacked from behind. According to reports, the soldier had been meeting to discuss ways to provide community protection and development assistance. The incident seemed to defy understanding. Why would a soldier wanting to help be attacked? But the reality is that this kind of violence is not unusual in places where foreign troops and local populations interact.

Canada's role in Afghanistan is an outcome of the previous government's International Policy Statement (IPS). The statement spells out ways to strengthen Canada's foreign policy with a central focus on the 3Ds — Defence, Diplomacy and Development. The IPS suggests integrating the 3Ds when dealing with failed and fragile states. Afghanistan represents one of the first clear, on the ground, implementations of this 3D approach.

In terms of defense, Canada deployed troops under the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom (part of the larger global "war on terror"), assumed control of the Southern Regional Command earlier this year, and deployed hundreds of soldiers in a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT). Canada is also a significant contributor to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). On the diplomatic front, Canada re-opened it's embassy in September 2003, and played a key role in the Bonn political process of supporting elections in Afghanistan. In development, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is committing $616.5 million in aid from 2001 to 2009, making Afghanistan the single largest recipient of Canadian bilateral aid.

Interaction with both sides

Integrating the 3Ds raises concerns and complexities. Independence, impartiality and neutrality are values embedded in the very DNA of most non-government organizations (NGOs). Consequently they strive to work with all people adversely affected by conflict, natural disasters and complex emergencies regardless of race, gender, sex, religion, politics or distinctions of any kind. NGOs generally do not side with one faction against the other. Indeed, it is not uncommon for NGOs to work simultaneously on both sides of a conflict with the full knowledge of the host government involved.

An example of this was the ongoing Ethiopian conflict between 1963 and 1991. Many international NGOs made it clear they were providing aid to eligible, affected, vulnerable people regardless of whether they were living in government or non-government areas. The same was true in neighbouring Sudan. And in Afghanistan under the Taliban, a number of NGOs were involved in humanitarian and development work in both Taliban and Northern Alliance areas.

Things changed after 9/11. Since then the notion of "humanitarian wars" has become more acceptable in some circles. In this kind of war, foreign military forces take action to prevent or terminate human rights abuses carried out, without the consent of the sovereign government. But what happens when foreign forces are protecting non-combatants in a country where the government is actively engaged in fighting insurgents, and the foreign forces become engaged in that struggle as well? Can these foreign forces really provide protection as they fight the insurgency? Clearly, innocents in the non-government areas will be affected.

Canada's mission in Afghanistan includes Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) and the concept of a "three block war." In this scenario soldiers are engaged in a number of tasks at the same time. They may be handing out aid or involved in reconstruction activities in one block, in combat in the second, and assisting local police with security operations in the third. But this policy is conducive to creating a climate of fear and mistrust with soldiers assisting the population one day and invading homes and making arrests the next. In Iraq this policy has been used with some disastrous results.

If instability continues in Afghanistan—a very real possibility given that country's history — NGOs' access to the needy in non-government areas will be limited. Canadian NGO workers are imperiled when they work in non-government areas where foreign forces, including Canada's, are actively engaged on the side of the government. Is it realistic to expect that the "enemy", or the general population for that matter, will differentiate between Canadian groups delivering only humanitarian aid (NGOs) and the Canadian military which is delivering aid on one hand and bombs on the other? It is an example of how integrating the 3Ds —particularly development and defence— can actually threaten the ability of NGOs to provide aid to "all" victims.

A healthy dose of caution is critical when contemplating a military humanitarian intervention. In Iraq, the coalition has managed to illustrate, once again, the limits of human prognostication and strategic planning. When the initial reason for war proved false — no weapons of mass destruction were found— the rationale shifted to a more humanitarian one. The people of Iraq were freed of a miserable tyrant and freedom and democracy would surely bloom. Instead, the foreign coalition was forced to defend itself against claims that it was violating the very human rights it sought to protect and instill. There is also mounting fear that the country is sliding into violence more terrible than that experienced under the dictator.

Security — supporting local initiatives

We all agree that gross violations of human rights should be taken seriously. But instead of military interventions, effective, non-military multilateral avenues should be pursued more vigorously.

Before the mid-nineties, multilateral economic and diplomatic mechanisms encouraged failed and fragile states to sit with rebel or terrorist groups and negotiate in the hope of working out differences. The results were decidedly mixed, but there were successes. A good example of this is the ANC in South Africa which began as a rebel group but eventually became the country's legitimate, democratically elected government.

These successes are a reminder to be careful when talking about groups involved in conflict, so as not to polarize and create further insecurities. In Uganda, for example, the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) continues to cause enormous suffering and the Ugandan government has branded it a terrorist organization. Yet one wonders if encouraging both sides to negotiate would not have a more positive affect and relieve some of the ongoing suffering. Can the root causes of the conflict be reasonably addressed?

NGOs typically link a community's security with long term development. The two are closely related in that human security is built on access to food, health care, education, human rights and livelihood needs. Economic shocks can also lead to community insecurity. In Rwanda in the early-1990s, economic structural re-adjustment devalued the currency by 80 percent, causing the country's debt to skyrocket. At about the same time coffee prices collapsed by 50 percent. These economic factors contributed to an erosion in human security which in turn contributed to a general climate of fear. We are all aware of the genocide that followed.

Good, sustainable development work implies a solid, genuine engagement with local populations. Building trust, acceptance and understanding takes time. Combining development and military force can easily lead to fear and mistrust in both local and neighbouring countries. Lasting progress and change then becomes even more difficult.

How best might Canada support a multilateral peace process which would rely on negotiation, reduce violence and fear and lead to a stable and prosperous Afghanistan? Can we surround the villages of Afghanistan with more hope and fewer guns?

 

Written by William Reimer, MCC Director of Food, Disaster and Material Resources, for the Canadian Council for International Cooperation in Ottawa.