Darfur, Iraq or Rwanda: What Can Militaries do to Protect Civilians?
By Victoria K. Holt and Joshua Smith
The Stimson Center, Washington, DC
April 26, 2007
What do Sudan and Iraq have in common? In both countries, international military forces are grappling with the question of how best to protect civilians from extreme levels of violence and mass atrocities. As international ambitions grow to embrace a responsibility to protect civilians from genocide and such violence, however, much work is needed to translate this goal into reality.
The conflicts in Iraq and Darfur are distinct in virtually every way. Yet both face horrific civilian death tolls despite the presence of international military forces. They share the fact that their civilian populations are not protected by their governments, and the urgent need to improve the ability of outside forces to halt systematic attacks against civilians.
In Darfur, Sudan, frustration runs high as international efforts to deploy new UN troops to join those of the African Union move slowly forward in a region devastated by mass killings and atrocities. After months of delays, the government of Sudan may now allow deployment of 3,000 of the planned 20,000-strong force approved by the UN last August. With two million displaced and 400,000 dead, Darfur is a humanitarian disaster in deep need of peace. What can the military forces deployed there from the international community do to bring protection and security to the population?
Likewise, frustration also grows daily about Iraq, and for a civilian population besieged by civil war and deep insecurity. The US and its allies are going after insurgents who threaten to take down the fledgling Iraqi government. Yet, increasingly, the humanitarian community worries that the civilian population itself is at the greatest risk for on-going attacks. While protecting civilians was not the motivation of the US invasion, protecting civilians is now a stated aim of the recent "surge." And with nearly two million displaced within the country and an equal number forced to flee to surrounding neighbors, Iraq too is a humanitarian disaster of staggering proportions. What can the military forces deployed there from the international community do to bring protection and security to the population?
Saving Lives Through Force? Both situations point to an important if neglected fact: saving civilian lives through the use of military forces is a daunting task. Most explanations for the failures to halt mass atrocities in the 1990s (most notably in Bosnia and Rwanda) have focused on a lack of international political will, for example. Yet even where countries have committed troops with mandates to protect civilians, the operational challenges that troops face in carrying out this task are demanding and unique from traditional war-fighting or traditional peacekeeping. Specific strategies employed to protect civilians--whether establishing "safe areas," enforcing no-fly-zones, or disarming refugee camps or militia--remain worryingly absent in the doctrine and training of most national forces. Yet the protection of civilians is an increasingly central component of modern military operations. Two trends suggest that it will become more prominent in coming years.
First, nations embraced a new vision of sovereignty and the prevention of future systematic atrocities at the UN World Summit in 2005. Heads of state endorsed the "responsibility to protect" civilians from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Likewise, the US National Security Strategy declared in 2006 that "(w)here perpetrators of mass killing defy all attempts at peaceful intervention, armed interventions may be required." Other organizations--such as the African Union and European Union--further have embraced the vision of future missions to intervene against genocide or in defense of human security. These efforts presume a future military role in backing up the pledge of halting and preventing mass atrocities – a pledge that is being endorsed by both developing states and developed countries.
Second, thousands of military and civilian personnel are already facing this challenge in peace and stability operations. Over 65,000 UN peacekeepers serve in missions mandated "to protect civilians under imminent threat." Where they deploy, populations often expect their protection to be secured. Yet in Haiti, Liberia, Côte d'Ivoire, southern Sudan, Lebanon and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, among others, such forces may have little guidance or capacity to offer physical protection to the population. No major military or international organization--including the UN, the African Union, NATO or the European Union--yet has well-developed guidance on the role of military peacekeepers to intervene on behalf of civilian populations.
Looking Forward. There is an opportunity to address the role of military forces to protect civilians. The first step is recognizing this challenge. The Stimson Center recently held a workshop in Ghana to look at past missions that faced mass atrocities and how they tried to stem them. Military leaders from UN-led and non-UN-led missions in Rwanda, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, East Timor, and the Democratic Republic of Congo gathered for three days to share lessons on what worked--and did not--and to look at steps toward developing better strategies for future operations to halt atrocities.
This work is only a start to develop the operational preparedness to fulfill the "responsibility to protect." International organizations, from the UN to the AU, from the EU to NATO, are developing greater doctrine and training for future missions. Ensuring that the protection of civilians is addressed in this effort should be a high priority.
As one General said at the Stimson workshop in Ghana, "The political direction needs to be more than 'do something, General!'" This challenge must be addressed to ensure that when the international community decides it should intervene to halt "conscience-shocking" levels of atrocities, it has the means, capacities, and strategies needed to do so effectively.
Victoria K. Holt is a Senior Associate at The Henry L. Stimson Center and co-directs the Future of Peace Operations Program. This program evaluates and helps to advance both US policy and international capacity for peace operations.
Joshua Smith is a Research Associate with the Future of Peace Operations program.