Upload
tno
View
340
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Comprehensive Approach
Marc van den Homberg, TNOCpt Pieter van Ingen, 1 Civil Military Interaction CommandSeptember 16 th 2012, Stenden Hogeschool, Leeuwarden
Contents
• Introduction
• Learning objectives
• Movie CIMIC (5 min)
• Introduction to Comprehensive approach
• Differences between civil and military
• How to cooperate and coordinate?
• Collaborative decision making
• Comprehensive approach in practice: case Afghanistan
Marc van den Homberg
• Study and work background:
• Ph.D. Physics and MBA
• KPN Research
• TNO, founded ICT4D team in 2006:
• Reserve officer civil-military interaction
Battalion since 2010
• Private:
• Living in Rotterdam, married with two kids
• Hobbies: mountaineering, running
Objectives
• To be able to explain the Comprehensive Approach and make the
link to comprehensive security
• To be able to explain the civil military interaction spectrum
• To know the differences between civil and military organisations and
how this impacts their interdependent dealing with a (post) conflict
setting
• To have an understanding of how the theory works in reality..
(Afghanistan)
The Security environment
Intrastate conflicts
Catastrophic terrorism
Transborder organized crime
Complex emergencies
Complex emergencies
The roots of these conflictsare COMPLEX and require a
multidisciplinary and comprehensive approach to create
a sustainable peace !
Civ Mil Interaction
Integrated Approach
Comprehensive
Crisis Management
DIME
All the same?
NATO Comprehensive approach definition
Synergy amongst all actors and actions of the International Community
through the coordination and de-confliction of its political, development and
security capabilities to face today’s Challenges including Complex
Emergencies
(Result of NATO internal CA Stakeholder Meeting 22 / 23 September 2010)
Civil and military actors
“boys with toys”, rigid, authoritarian, conservative, impatient, arrogant, civilian phobic, excessively security conscious
non-guided organisations, children of the 60s, tree huggers, undisciplined, unpunctual, anarchic, anti-military
Civil actors about the military
Military about civil actors
But “thé NGO” does not exist
Position in Comprehensive approach depends on:
• Type of intervention (manmade versus nature disaster)
• Type of organisation (humanitarian versus development)
• Implementing via local organisations or by themselves
• National context (relationship between ministries and NGOs, e.g.
Germany vs Netherlands) and autonomy
Just like “thé military” does not exist…!
NGOs versus Military differences
1. Decision making process (flat versus hierarchical; autonomous
versus political)
2. Role (neutrality, impartiality versus choosing sides in a conflict)
3. Long term versus short term
4. Vision on the use of violence
5. Cultural knowledge
6. Execution (process oriented versus task oriented)
7. Involvement of local partners (bottom-up versus top-down)
8. Perception of local population
Levels of Interaction
Integration : Integrated planning and action.
Coherence : Common goals and trust lead to comprehensive actions – concerted planning and action.
Cooperation : Shared view and economy of activities encourages common purposes and common goals.
De-confliction : Shared view avoids interference and encourages economy of activities – self-synchronize.
Awareness : Transparency and information sharing enhances shared view of the engagement space.
Coexistence : The state of being together in the same place at the same time.
Note: Principles of NGOs and IOs limit their potential level of interaction
Comprehensive approach matrix
Actors Intra-agency Whole-of-government
Inter-agency Internal-External
United Various sections of the Swedish government
Various Canadian government agencies
Operation Desert Storm, 1991 Gulf War
Elections in DRC 2006
Integrated Various components of UN Peacekeeping mission
UK Stabilisation Unit or Canadian Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force
UN Peacekeeping mission and UN Country Team, e.g. Liberia 2009
Liberia 2009: use of PRS
Cooperate DPKO and OCHA work together on UN Protection of Civilians Guidelines
Civilian and military pillars of USA PRT in Afghanistan, 2009
Afghanistan Bonn-process2003; UN-EU cooperation in Chad, 2008
EULEX and the Kosovo government, 2009
Coordinate DPKO and OCHA in the field
Civilian and military pillars of Norwegian PRT in Afghanistan, 2009
Humanitarian cluster approach to coordinate;Kosovo UNMIK
UN and Sudanese Independent Electoral Commission in April 2010 elections
Coexist Various parts of EU in Chad in 2008
DFID and MOD fail to agree on common evaluation criteria for UK PRT in Afghanistan, 2008
Humanitarian community and MONUC in Eastern DRC, 2009
UNAMID and Government of Darfur, 2008
Compete Various sections of a ministry compete for funding
US State Department, US Department of Defense and CIA in Afghanistan, 2007
Humanitarian agencies and UNMIL disagree on movement of IDPs from Monrovia, 2005
Taliban and ISAF/UNAMA;Government of Chad and MINURCAT, 2010
Coherence and coordination The limits of the comprehensive approach, Cedric de Coning and Karsten Friss, Journal of International Peacekeeping 15 (2011) 243-272
1. Commitment to peace and stability
2. Hard working attitude
3. International experience
4. Life with hardship and danger
5. Personal risk of injury
6. Decision making under pressure
7. Frustration with political decision making
Common ground
How to cooperate/coordinate (1)
Mutual benefit
Military-Civil Interaction Civil-Military Interaction
• Local knowledge
• Experience
• Information and contacts
• Assessment
www.dfid.gov.uk
www.usaid.gov
• Language and customs
• Security
• Information (roads, weather, maps,
mines, incidents…)
• Support within means and
capabilities (medical, comms,
logistics)
• Situation Assessment
How to cooperate/coordinate (2)
Levels of interaction
Integration Projects jointly executed, or by NGOs but financed by the military
Cooperation Direct cooperation around agreed upon activities but separately executed
Awareness Military and NGOs exchange information wrtsafety, reconstruction and development projects
Coexistence Military (e.g. PRT) and NGOs are present in the same area but have no close relationship
How to cooperate/coordinate (3)
How to cooperate/coordinate (4)Some additional observations
• Exchange of information is done between stakeholders, but quite
often behind the scenes and with strict conditions
• Open cooperation between NGOs and military is –because of
security reasons- almost never a good idea
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs forms a natural interface between Defense
and NGOs
• Local NGOs are more pragmatic in their dealing with soldiers than
INGOs
How to cooperate/coordinate (5) Collaborative decision making
Challenges in collaborative decision making
• How can all actors overcome their differences and cooperate in complex
mission environments?
• How do diplomacy, defense and development activities enforce instead of
oppose each other?
• How can the actors be adaptive?
What is Collaborative Decision Making?
• Characteristics
• For civil and military parties in complex mission environments
• Based on military and civilian (planning) processes
• Translation of political aims in specific approaches and activities
• Adaptive ways to stability, development and security, not end state
driven
• Unity of Effort/Unity of Purpose (instead of Unity of Command)
• Track record
• Uruzgan Campaign Plan
• Comprehensive Mission Design Kunduz
Long termobjective
STARTINGPOINT
MISSION
Non endstate driven, but iterative approach
Comprehensive Decision Making
1. GovernanceS
upportive leaders
Unsupportive leaders
IO/G
O/N
GO
activities
National program
mes
Sec. F
orces Presence
Influence of INS
Narcotics (O
C)
Factors to exploit
2. Rule of Law3. Security Apparatus4. Education5. Healthcare6. Agriculture & Rural Development7. Infrastructure & natural resources8. Economic Development9. Social Protection
Local Conflicts
Factors to mitigate
Developm
ent themes
Backbone CDM process: Conceptual framework
Ho
w to
use
it?
Ho
w to
ge
t the
re?
Marc van den Homberg, 21032012Questions?? Ideas?
Jump in!
Feel free to contact me at:
Marc van den Homberg+31 6 [email protected]
References
For this presentation the following sources were used:
• Collaborative Decision Making, Ingrid van Bemmel and Aletta
Eikelboom, Jan 19th 2012, presentation for 1 GNC.
• NATO’s Contribution to a Comprehensive Approach, Nils T. Gallagher,
CCOE
• De comprehensive approach vanuit NGO perspectief: Une liaison
dangereuse, Paul van den Berg en Eveline Rooijmans, CA
Conferentie, 23 mei 2012, The Hague
• Civiel-militaire relaties in complexe noodsituaties, Kees Homan, Hfd 8
in Humanitaire ruimte: tussen onpartijdigheid en politiek
• Coherence and coordination The limits of the comprehensive
approach, Cedric de Coning and Karsten Friss, Journal of
International Peacekeeping 15 (2011) 243-272
Pieter van Ingen
Decision making:
95% of our decision are made within a few milliseconds and based on our need for happiness/satisfaction and security, short-term oriented
Therefore:
Comprehensive approach with people we don’t know is very difficult.Trust has to be established first
95%
IO/G
O/N
GO
activ
ities
Na
tion
al p
rog
ram
me
s
Se
c. Fo
rces P
rese
nce
OM
F a
ctivitie
s
Na
rcotics (O
C)
Infl. o
f po
we
rbro
ke
rs
Enablers
2010
2010
2010
201020102010
2050
TF
U e
ffects
2010
Loca
l Co
nflicts
DisablersPolitical
Strategy
Security
Strategy
Economic
Strategy
Social
Strategy
IO
Strategy
Mission Approach URUZGAN: Conceptual Framework
End State
Diplomacy
Defence
Development
GovernorDistrictChiefs
SecurityForce& police
Commanders and foreign affairs officials
Reconstruction and mentoring teams
Battle group, mentoring &Liaison teams
Main PlayersChange ambition
From Civ effectsTo development
DIPLOMACY
DEFENCE
DEVELOPMENT
DIPLOMACY-project
DIPLOMACY-project
DEFENCE-project
Development-project
Development-project
Development-project
Development-project
ISAF ends in 2014 in Afghanistan once transition is done to:• Local authorities• Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF)Note that this implies that not all three D’s from 3D are covered
NATO (USECT)• Understand• Shape• Engage• Consolidate• Transition
Defence
Development
Diplomacy
U S E C T