a guide to peace support operations - The Watson Institute for ...

Part II, Section 1, paragraphs 3-4
assistance during conflict: when there is no host government, when
several competing authorities claim the right to govern, or when a
victorious guerrilla force seeks revenge against those who opposed it.
Previous experience provides few insights into the complexities of the
next crisis. There is a sense that the humanitarian network is always
one step behind a crisis or fighting the new war with the strategy and
tactics of the previous one, exacerbated by the unpredictable and
rapidly changing nature of emergencies.
(3) Resourcing New Roles
Complex emergencies introduce issues beyond the mandates or capacities
of most agencies. Demining and demobilization activities are
two examples. The list of new activities has grown and expanded the
concept of “humanitarian aid.” More and more humanitarian aid is
seen as an instrument to provide “relief” for fragile societies that, if
not assisted quickly, may slide back into conflict. Humanitarian aid
therefore may encompass such post-conflict recovery activities as
constructing military barracks, establishing police forces, and even
building prisons. None of these activities has ever been seen as
conventionally “humanitarian,” but without them, there may be only
the prospect of more violence. The need to deal with a growing number
of different activities has not led to a clarification of UN agency
mandates and capabilities. This lack of clarity encourages confusion
and competition for “turf” or institutional territory. When mandates
are not clear, the fight for turf is inevitable.
A critical factor of the growing competition concerns resources. An
agency’s capacity to fulfill its intended program is dependent upon the
funds and material it can attract from donor governments and other
sources. Agencies spend a great deal of time and effort in raising
resources, and perhaps the worst turf battles occur in those situations
where mandated responsibilities are ambiguous and resource stakes
are potentially high.
4. The Peacekeepers and the Humanitarians
Stereotyped mutual images flourish when peacekeepers and humanitarian agencies
work together in the same operational area. Peacekeepers look with dismay at the looseknit
and apparently “shambolic” civilian structures that are intended to provide humanitarian
assistance, while the civilians view the peacekeepers as inflexible and culturally
insensitive. The relationship is fragile. The humanitarian community does not wish to be
seen as the instrument of the peacekeepers, and peacekeepers often bring with them a
significant capacity to become engaged in humanitarian assistance and resent the fact that
this capability is rejected by humanitarian agencies. Yet, the peacekeepers and the
36