January 2002 Insights Issue #39

Back to Insights #39

Hearts and minds? Defining civil-military links globally

Since the end of the Cold War there has been a growing debate on civil-military cooperation (CIMIC). Mutual support and interaction between civilian and military actors, the importance of CIMIC in modern Peace Support Operations is now widely recognised.

CIMIC is a newer version of the 'hearts and minds' philosophy that aimed to win the hearts and minds of civilian people in counter-insurgency operations (the British in Malaya in the 1950s or the French in Algeria in the war of 1954-62). In the post-Cold War period, however, CIMIC has undergone considerable evolution in the light of increasing western humanitarian intervention, which seeks to provide economic and social support and military security in 'fractured' and severely divided states such as Angola and Afghanistan or states which have almost completely 'failed' such as Somalia.

National militaries have developed a variety of different relationships with civilian organisations: CIMIC means different things at different levels of government and command. No international consensus yet exists on what CIMIC should exactly embody. The US Army, for example, has dedicated CIMIC or Civil Affairs (CA) staff, usually reservists, who support Civil Military Operations (CMO). In the UK, by contrast, CIMIC is a general military issue rather than the sole preserve of dedicated forces. Only a small number of UK CIMIC specialists and advisers are ready to operate in designated CIMIC centres. Working in close liaison with local and international humanitarian bodies and NGOs, UK CIMIC personnel provide advice and support for peacekeeping operations, involving activities such as mine clearing, opening access routes, or rebuilding infrastructure.

The UK approach mirrors that of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). NATO aims 'to establish and maintain the full co-operation of the NATO commander, the civilian population, and institutions...to create civil-military conditions which offer the greatest possible moral, material, and tactical advantages'.

Most western states, and NATO members in particular, broadly follow this approach with variations in emphasis. A notable exception is Switzerland, whose draft CIMIC proposal is heavily influenced by the Swiss commitment to neutrality and the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (ICRC) mandate of impartiality and neutrality. The Swiss proposal thus sees military force being employed only as 'a last resort for providing relief in humanitarian emergencies'. 'Over-reliance on the military or its imprudent use,' the proposal continues, 'will severely damage the humanitarian system and place humanitarian activities and workers at risk'.

International agreement on CIMIC doctrine is so far elusive. It is interpreted in a multitude of ways to serve a broad range of political and administrative purposes. To operate credibly, CIMIC principles depend on the concept of 'joined up government'. In the UK, this refers to inter-departmental planning between the Department of International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. In the USA, on the other hand, CIMIC refers to inter-agency planning. More broadly speaking, it relates to closer harmonisation of planning between international organisations such as the European Union, the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Western European Union, and NATO.

The need for clearer CIMIC principles to overcome the diversity of different national military traditions is clear. A greater degree of international consensus over the meaning of CIMIC would also enhance the legitimacy of future UN peace enforcement operations under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Yet does this threaten state sovereignty preserved in Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, as China and Russia traditionally see it? Since the early 1990s there has been gradual international acceptance that the UN should increase its competence in this area, beginning with UN Security Council Resolution 688 (1991) which stated that the refugee problem on the Iraq-Turkish border constituted a 'threat to international peace and security'. Whilst Resolution 688 was not initially accepted under Chapter VII, the pace of humanitarian interventions in the 1990s has ensured that even states such as China are reluctantly acknowledging the need for UN trusteeship in Kosovo, East Timor and possibly (at the time of writing) Afghanistan, for example.

Should the right to intervene be extended to cover cases where the state fails to provide for the basic security of its people? What would the implications for international security be?

• If accepted by international opinion, an extended right to intervene would embrace more situations than is currently the case under the conventional threat to international peace and security rubric.
• The UN would take on some of the trappings of a world government.
• A UN CIMIC doctrine would become increasingly relevant, and would need to draw on the experience of international peacekeeping operations.
• A UN CIMIC doctrine would also need to develop principles of intervention to underpin the operations of a permanent UN rapid reaction force, thus ensuring much faster intervention in complex emergencies where state authority has broken down.

Paul Rich
Consultant for DFID researching civil-military relations
Centre for Defence Studies
King's College London
Strand
London WC2R 2LS

FREE Information Delivery services from ID21:

ID21 is enabled by the UK Government Department for International Development(www.dfid.gov.uk) and hosted by the Institute of Development Studies (www.ids.ac.uk/ids), at the University of Sussex, UK. Charitable Company No. 877338. ID21 is a oneworld.net (www.oneworld.org) partner and a mediachannel affiliate (www.mediachannel.org).

Right-to-Reply: