What Might Help Establish Peace?

Chito L.
Razon September 5, 2019

11 STEM –Amedeo Avogadro Mrs.Marites V. Doctor
Over the past 8-10 years, there has been a notable increase in both the
involvement of militaries in natural disasters and the development of their disaster
response capacities. These engagements often serve political purposes. The Oslo
Guidelines are currently the leading international instrument concerning the role
of militaries in the response to natural disasters. What might help establish peace? It
includes some important principles that deserve support, including that: military
involvement should be seen as a last resort when there is no comparable civilian
alternative; militaries should to the degree possible limit their work to
“infrastructure” and “indirect” support as opposed to face-to-face delivery of
assistance; and militaries involved in assistance should not also be used for
security purposes. The Guidelines also, however, have a number of critical
limitations, which are not always understoodby humanitarian actors. Two of these
deserve special mention
Humanitarian intervention is a use of military force to address
extraordinary suffering of people, such as genocide or similar, large-scale
violation of basic of human rights, where people’s suffering results from their
own government’s actions or failures to act. These interventions are also called
“armed interventions,” or “armed humanitarian interventions,” or “humanitarian
wars. They are interventions to protect, defend, or rescue other people from gross
abuse attributable to their own government. The armed intervention is conducted
without the consent of the offending nation. Those intervening militarily are one
or more states, or international organizations.
The Oslo Guidelines only apply to militaries acting outside their own
countries ("use of foreign military and civil defence assets in international disaster
relief operations"). They do not provide guidance with regard to relations with the
military of the affected country itself, even though it is this latter relationship that
is usually most problematic, particularly in unstable environments where national
militaries are often perceived or actual parties to a conflict. In natural disasters in
situations where there is no conflict or political violence, the involvement of the
military is less problematic.Recently, another set of guidelines with some
relevance was adopted by a broader setof governments at the 30thInternational
Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (a body that includes all the state
parties to the Geneva Conventions as well as the components of the International
Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement). The ‘Guidelines for the domestic
facilitation and regulation of international disaster relief and initial recovery
assistance’ (also known as the ‘IDRL Guidelines’) has only a few provisions
specific to military relief, but one important one is that military assets should be
deployed for disaster relief or initial recovery assistance only at the request of and
with the express consent of the affected State, after comparable civilian
alternatives have been considered’. While not as strong as the term “last resort”
the latter part of this phrase applies to all foreign militaries, and was agreed after
substantial negotiation including both ‘troop contributing’ and potential
‘receiving’ countries. Like the Oslo Guidelines, however, the IDRL Guidelines
are non-binding.From the military perspective, CIMIC doctrine and concepts are
also a major guide for action in natural disasters, despite having been developed
in conflict situations. There is a tendency for militaries to transfer lessons directly
from complex emergencies to natural disasters, and focus on military or political
objectives rather than unconditional support to the humanitarian response.From
the humanitarian perspective, organisations appear to be less inclined to advocate
for their relations with the military to be guided by humanitarian principles in
natural disasters, as compared to situations of conflict. In fact little attention is
paid to the possible long-term consequences of close humanitarian-military
relations during disasters (for the people affected by the crisis, ourselves, other
agencies), namely in terms of the perception of the independence and possibly
neutrality of humanitarian action in a potentially changing political environment.
This applies to both national and foreign militaries.
Despite the misgivings of many countries, human security as a
justification for military intervention under certain circumstances has gained
widespread acceptance. The UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Threats,
Chal-lenges and Change endorsed ‘the emerging norm that there is an
international responsibility to protect [civilians] . . . in the event of genocide and
other large-scale killing, ethnic cleansing or serious violations of international
humanitarian law which sovereign governments have proved powerless or
unwilling to prevent’.5 Annan carried forward this endorsement in his report to
the UN General Assembly, ‘In larger freedom’.6 Surprisingly, the General
Assembly, at the September 2005 World Summit, endorsed the concept of the
sovereign responsibility to protect civilians, including by using force as a last
resort against states that do not live up to that responsibility.7If there is an
emerging consensus in theory (and that is open to debate), many questions remain
in practice.8 Under what conditions should outsiders intervene militarily? Should
the intervention force be a UN force, as in Haiti, or a coalition of like-minded
states, as in Kosovo? Some people argue that humanitarian intervention is
‘yesterday’s problem’ and that the ‘war on terrorism’ since September 2001 has
made it obsolete because governments now focus only on protecting their vital
national inter-ests.11 There is no doubt that national interests, traditionally
understood, remain at the centre of every state’s foreign and security policies.
Should the interveners be combat troops or peacekeepers? How much
force is appropriate and at whom should it be directed? Humanitarian aid workers
define their role as non-political and impartial, seeking to minimize violence and
treat all sides equally. Militaries, on the other hand, take sides and look for
enemies. Some people argue that humanitarian intervention is ‘yesterday’s
problem’ and that the ‘war on terrorism’ since September 2001 has made it
obsolete because governments now focus only on protecting their vital national
inter-ests.11 There is no doubt that national interests, traditionally understood,
remain at the centre of every state’s foreign and security policies.
1.What is the writer’s stand?

The humanitarian perspective, organisations appear to be less inclined to
advocate for their relations with the military to be guided by humanitarian
principles in natural disasters, as compared to situations of conflict. So the writer
is favourable that military army helps the people affected by the crisis,ourselves
and other agencies.
2.What is the introduction?

The introduction is there has been a notable increase in both the
involvement of militaries in natural disasters (e.g through use of military assets
and logistical support) and the development of their disaster response capacities.
These engagements often serve political purposes. The Oslo Guidelines are
currently the leading international instrument concerning the role of militaries in
the response to natural disasters. It includes some important principles that
deserve support, including that: military involvement should be seen as a last
resort when there is no comparable civilian alternative; militaries should to the
degree possible limit their work to “infrastructure” and “indirect” support as
opposed to face-to-face delivery of assistance; and militaries involved in
assistance should not also be used for security purposes.
4.What is the issue about?

The issue about is on humanitarian military relations and recognise that
the military may have an important role to play and responsibilities to shoulder in
crisis response in armed conflict situations or in response to a natural disaster.
Particularly in situations of armed conflict or other situations of violence
however, primacy for humanitarian response should be given to civilian actors.
5. What does the conclusion state about the issue?

The authors conclude the special issue devoted to humanitarian action use
their own experience, analysis, and thought as a basis for identifying the
challenges and stakes facing humanitarian action in the twenty-first century. They
present their thoughts on the relevance of humanitarian intervention, on the need
to combine emergency aid with development assistance, and on the development
of governmental humanitarian action. In today's world there is a compelling
obligation for communities with resources and means to undertake humanitarian
action in the name of human dignity. Adopting a code of conduct, respecting
minimal standards, and evaluating the outcome are now universally accepted
principles, but the modalities of applying these principles are still subject to
discussion especially with regard to standards and accreditation. The importance
of adequate training and preparation for humanitarian action has also been
established. Currently most humanitarian operations involve numerous actors
from different organizations that may be national or international as well as
governmental, intergovernmental, or non-governmental. A major portion of this
issue is devoted to the relationship between military forces and humanitarian
organizations.
Reference:
Baudon, D. (2002). Challenges and stakes in humanitarian action in the XXIth century.
Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12534193
(n.d.). Position Paper on Humanitarian Military Relations - World. Retrieved from

https://reliefweb.int/report/world/position-paper-humanitarian-military-relations

What Might Help Establish Peace?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Might Help Establish Peace?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Might Help Establish Peace?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chito L.

Razon September 5, 2019

1.What is the writer’s stand?

2.What is the introduction?

4.What is the issue about?

5. What does the conclusion state about the issue?

(n.d.). Position Paper on Humanitarian Military Relations - World. Retrieved from

You might also like