Home
Summary
Background
Session 1
Session 2
Session 3
Session 4
Session 5
Session 6
Session 7
Session 8
Links
Contact

Purpose

Civil military cooperation is a key aspect of a successful peace operation and deserves greater attention through thorough discussion.

Background

Modern peace operations are essentially civilian defined and led, however, only the military can provide security, put a cessation to conflict, separate warring factions, disarm and demobilize, etc. Only when the military peace operation mission leaves and fully functioning host nation civilian institutions take over all aspects of managing a civil society, with the indigenous military in its role of providing defense of national borders, can a mission be considered to be truly successful, according to the sustainable peace model. The reality is that the development of meaningful coordination mechanisms between the military mission and the civilian mission is limited and has experienced lags since the advent of modern peace support operations and multinational force operations.

Discussion Points

1. How is civil-military coordination achieved?
2. What concepts need to be agreed upon if civil-military coordination is to be achieved?
3. What are the strengths and weaknesses in civil and military structures that assist or impede coordination?
4. How is language a barrier to civil-military coordination?
5. How are joint measures of effectiveness established for civil-military operations?
6. What are the differences between civilian and military models for coordination?
7. Are there any provisions in these models for inclusion of indigenous groups that have a role in relief, recovery and development?

Discussion Summary

For civilians there are certain frustrations. Military and defense like to count on civilian ability to help but then isn't a lot of payback. We will do a lot of work to show why a task had to be done in a certain way, but then the UN comes in and chooses to do it a certain way. We don't seem to be able to influence defense on a political level. The military does not always consider the political aspects. Lives are at risk and a wrong decision can cause lives. Some NGOs are forbidden to have personal contact with the military. If the civilian side is weak in decision-making then the military will be able to push their own view. Sometimes it is a question of leadership.

When civilians want to make any policy that has an impact on security, new have to work very closely with the military because they are the one who will be implementing.

Co-locating headquarters may be an option. It depends on the situation, and the capability of the each headquarters to stay within the scope of their missions and the level of communication that is desired. Where a key agency has a conflict with the military headquarters, it might be necessary to get a third party to take control for a while. Still, shared headquarters can really encourage collaboration and sometimes it is even required.

The military has to provide security for civilians whether they want it or not. It is easy to know whom to deal with on the military side because there is a clear leader, a clear chain of command. The military feels responsible for the security of the region so they do have to take some control. There is also the issue of the local notice of what's going on, which can create the issue about security. When the military takes over, often the people are happy to conform.

[Up to top]