NGO-military relations in armed conflict zones

Salavatov Il'yas Khasymovich Graduate Student, Political Theory Department, MGIMO University 76 Vernadsky Avenue, Moscow, 119454, Russia, Moscow il.salavatov@my.mgimo.ru

In modern armed conflicts, non-profit organizations are playing an increasingly important role, since they are able to flexibly and promptly respond to emerging humanitarian crises due to the absence of the need to undergo lengthy coordination procedures adopted in international organizations, and can focus on solving narrow tasks. At the same time, NGOs can be used as part of the projection of soft power or even as power tools ^[1], which requires special attention to organizations working in conflict zones, since organizations acting in the interests of unfriendly countries can create risks and threats to the state. The high activity of NGOs presupposes their participation in the resolution of acute crises in hot spots, therefore they operate in the same territories where the armed forces conduct operations, which leads to the need for interaction between them in one form or another to solve assigned tasks or ensure security. Within the framework of this article, the interaction of non-profit organizations (NGOs) and the armed forces (armed forces) will be considered, and in this context, NGOs are understood as legal entities dealing mainly with humanitarian problems and not aimed at making a profit, and the Armed Forces are understood as regular armed contingents of national states, including those operating within the framework of UN peacekeeping forces.

In the scientific literature, this topic is part of research on civil-Military Relations, in which relations between military and civilian institutions are studied ^[10]. The issue of interaction between the Armed Forces and NGOs began to be actively raised during the analysis of the implementation of the concept of humanitarian interventions carried out by Western countries, which assumed the achievement of humanitarian goals by military methods. Such operations were accompanied by the broad participation of non-profit organizations, as a result of which the tasks of the military and NGOs partially intersected and a number of problems arising during interaction were noted, therefore, the bulk of the work is aimed at their analysis and search for solutions.

First of all, the researchers note the problem of communication caused by differences in institutional culture, values and terminology used, which are superimposed on a lack of awareness of each other ^{[3],[5],[13],[17],[18]}. Different approaches to planning horizons are also emphasized - if it is important for the military to solve short-term tasks within the framework of the operation, then NGOs are more focused on the long-term results of their activities ^[5]. When solving similar tasks, a competitive relationship may arise between the military and NGOs, and the military, pursuing their goals, consider humanitarian activities as a means to achieve them ^[11]. At the same time, the need for separation of functions and the undesirability of involving the military to perform tasks such as the distribution of humanitarian aid is noted ^[3].

Much attention is paid to the exchange of information, and the high role of NGOs is emphasized, since they have wide access to important information and are not always ready to share it ^[3],[5],[6]. The issue of politicization also arises here, since with the help of this information, NGOs get the opportunity to influence political decision makers. At the same time, there are opposite assessments of politicization - on the one hand, some authors consider it in a positive way, since it allows NGOs to attract more attention to existing problems ^[6], and, on the other, in the context of close interaction with the military, they talk about the risks of losing the impartiality of NGOs if they get too close to state actors ^[4]. The risks of influencing the state policy regarding the security of expert opinions provided by NGOs are also noted, since their idealized approach to problems may not always correspond to the degree of existing threats, which leads to a conflict between law enforcement agencies and NGOs ^[18]. An interesting observation is the increased coordination of actors due to the participation of the military, since NGOs themselves do not have sufficient resources and motivation for effective coordination of actions ^[4].

In general, researchers note the importance of dialogue and information exchange between the Armed Forces and NGOs and suggest the creation of special platforms for organizing cooperation, an example of which can be considered the ANSO model, which was implemented in Afghanistan ^[19].

In Russian literature, this problem is addressed only indirectly in the context of non-military operations of the late XX century ^[2].

In the current conditions, there is a need for a broader consideration of the problem, since the concept of humanitarian interventions has demonstrated its inefficiency and has ceased to be widely used by Western countries, which is why published studies where the focus is on operations of this nature become less relevant. At the same time, the nature of humanitarian interventions also determines the scale and nature of the conflict in question - as a rule, these are low-intensity conflicts in which well-armed and trained forces of Western countries are opposed by a weaker opponent. Taking into account the experience of the SVO, it is necessary to further investigate the problem adjusted for the scale of the conflict and the nature of hostilities, which, of course, affects the relationship between the Armed Forces and NGOs. It is also worth noting that in the publications of foreign authors, the situation is viewed from the positions of Western countries operating in conditions where most NGOs support the Armed Forces to a greater or lesser extent, since they originate from the same country or from allied countries. Therefore, they practically do not face opposition from NGOs and do not pay significant attention to this aspect in their publications.

Thus, it is obvious that the range of interactions has become much wider, and additional research of the problem from the perspective of the Russian Federation is also needed.

The purpose of this study is to describe the main types of interaction between the Armed Forces and NGOs that can be observed in modern conflicts, and to develop recommendations for improving the effectiveness of cooperation and reducing risks and threats in the context of armed conflicts in which the Russian Federation is currently involved and which it may face in the future.

The problem will be considered using logical and intuitive modeling from the standpoint of political realism based on an institutional approach, which will allow focusing on the analysis of the results of the interaction of actors based on the priority of national interests.

Based on an empirical analysis of the interactions of NGOs with the armed forces in modern conflict zones, four main types of interaction can be distinguished, which will be discussed below.

Support. In this context, support refers to activities aimed at unilateral support of NGOs by the Armed Forces and vice versa, that is, there is no reciprocal support and is not expected. As a rule, this type of interaction is less common than others, since usually the charters of NGOs do not imply direct support for the Armed Forces, and the tasks of the Armed Forces in combat zones are rarely directed to action in the interests of individual organizations. However, such an interaction can occur in three cases:

but. Ensuring the protection of NGO employees during humanitarian operations and assistance in the field of logistics. This is the most typical type of support that has been observed since the second half of the 20th century, when the international humanitarian activities of NGOs intensified. Within its framework, it is assumed that the Armed Forces will be used to ensure the safety of NGO employees when they carry out their statutory activities in armed conflict zones. On the one hand, ensuring security by the Armed Forces can provide a higher level of protection for NGO employees, but on the other hand, it reduces the flexibility of their activities due to the need to follow strict security protocols established by the military, and can negatively affect the level of perception of NGOs by the local population, which identifies their employees with military personnel ^[9].

b. The activities of NGOs in the interests of law enforcement institutions. Here we are talking about the loss of the independence of NGOs and their use as a political tool for the realization of national interests. In fact, we can say that with this format, NGOs act as branches of state institutions (including law enforcement agencies, such as intelligence agencies). Within the framework of interaction with the Armed Forces, such NGOs can provide broad support by providing intelligence information, be used as part of the “hearts and minds” tactics (gaining support from the local population) ^[7], to carry out provocations and other activities. At the same time, this mechanism is widely used by Western countries in their operations. Thus, US government officials directly stated that the presence of NGOs in Iraq has strategic value for the United States ^[8], and in Afghanistan there were cases when representatives of law enforcement agencies acted in civilian form, posing as NGO employees ^[15]. In such a situation, the local population identifies NGOs with, which reduces the effectiveness of the activities of all NGOs involved in the conflict zone.

b. The activities of volunteer and other organizations to support military personnel in conditions of fierce military clashes. Such a format is a new phenomenon, since previously NGOs did not provide direct support to the armed forces due to their focus on helping the civilian population and avoiding involvement in the conflict. In the historical perspective, such support was provided by representatives of civil society to the armies of the warring countries during the First and Second World Wars, but then there were associations of citizens that did not fall under the modern definition of NGOs. The peak of NGO activity came closer to the end of the XX century, when armed conflicts were characterized by a relatively low degree of intensity, so the armed Forces of the belligerents did not feel the need for additional support. A high-intensity conflict occurred between the Russian Federation and Ukraine in 2022, which led to a request for additional support of the Armed Forces from both warring parties and the activation of various NGOs and volunteer groups, as well as similar processes took place during the conflict in the Donbas in 2014. Support is provided by sending material and technical assistance to the warring units, which may include both household items and food products that facilitate the life of military personnel, as well as dual-use products - vehicles, UAVs, surveillance devices, attachments for small arms, etc. A distinctive feature here is the low level of institutionalization: many associations may not be legally registered although they perform similar functions in practice and have non-formalized statutory goals and personnel structure.

Partnership. Partnerships involve mutually beneficial cooperation in which the military and NGOs act in each other's interests. This type of interaction is the most preferable, since it involves a coordinated solution of the tasks facing both NGOs and the Armed Forces, while their functions are clearly separated and each of the actors acts within their competencies. Partnerships are difficult to achieve between actors with such different philosophies and organizational cultures, but their establishment can be facilitated by setting clear goals at the political level that would be accepted by all actors as a guideline ^[9].

There are three main areas of mutually beneficial partnership between NGOs and the military:

a. Coordination and exchange of information. In practice, this can be realized by creating coordinating bodies or holding joint meetings, within the framework of which the command staff and employees of NGOs can discuss the actions being taken to minimize risks and improve the effectiveness of solving tasks. Such a format helps to increase openness, reduce misunderstandings and simplify work for all parties, while maintaining a sufficient level of independence of actions for NGOs, which allows them to operate on a larger territory. However, in order to implement such a scenario, the interests of the Armed Forces and NGOs must coincide, which is not always the case in modern conflicts. But still, this type of interaction remains preferable even in cases where the goals of the military and NGOs do not directly coincide, since it can be useful for solving individual tasks and ensuring greater security in the area of activity as a whole.

b. Co-education. NGO employees and the military have a wide range of competencies in specialized areas, and this knowledge can be useful to both sides ^[12]. Thus, NGO employees may have knowledge of local geographical, social, cultural and other features, skills in providing medical assistance to the civilian population, and the military have survival skills in the wild, know how to act in the face of shelling and can share information about the tactics of warfare to reduce the risks of NGO employees coming under fire. Thus, conducting experience exchange events can be useful for NGOs and the military, and this knowledge will allow both to solve tasks more effectively within the framework of individual conflicts, and to improve the skills of personnel as a whole.

B. Monitoring and evaluation. A joint analysis of cooperation can help identify and correct problematic issues and ensure continuous improvement of practices and mechanisms of interaction. It is also possible to conduct joint research on existing problems in the region of action, which can contribute to the development of solutions for conflict resolution, as well as further be used in the scientific community for theoretical understanding and development of recommendations for decision makers.

Neutrality is a common form of interaction in which NGOs and the Armed Forces are engaged in solving their tasks with minimal interaction with each other. Such a format leads to a number of problems due to the lack of necessary coordination of actions, as a result of which, even if the goals facing the Armed Forces and NGOs coincide, the effectiveness of their activities may decrease and additional risks may arise related to the threat to the lives of NGO employees during their actions in combat areas or with the possibility of disrupting operations, planned by the command of the Armed Forces due to certain actions of NGO employees. Also, in the absence of effective feedback, there may be an increase in distrust between military personnel and NGO employees, which does not contribute to stabilizing the situation.

Historically, confrontation can be considered the initial form of interaction between NGOs and the Armed Forces, since humanitarian organizations initially had a negative attitude towards the military because of their pacifist views, considering them the cause of the problems they are solving, and rejected the possibility of cooperation ^[14]. Confrontation arises in cases when trusting relationships do not develop between actors and their goals and objectives do not coincide. As a rule, this happens in three cases:

but. NGOs act in the interests of unfriendly states. Actors pursuing various interests can act in the conflict zone, and individual NGOs can be used as instruments of influence on the situation in the conflict zone by States. In such a situation, the armed forces and cooperating or neutral NGOs find themselves in a difficult position, since the Armed Forces face a difficult task of finding hostile organizations and developing suitable measures to counter them, and conscientious NGOs may face problems in conducting activities due to restrictions imposed by the Armed Forces. The most striking example is the situation in Syria, where a large number of NGOs operate, and individual organizations, for example, the White Helmets, are used by special services to carry out provocations.

b. State institutions and the military in particular are not interested in the activities carried out by NGOs. NGOs may face opposition from the Armed Forces if the local authorities have concerns about the possibility of a coup with the support of NGO employees or when they conduct activities contrary to local cultural and religious customs.  NGOs may also face opposition with a general disinterest in their activities on the part of the military, who may either simply show indifference, or believe that the activities of NGOs interfere with their operations.  This may lead to the creation of obstacles to the activities of NGOs or a physical threat to employees.

V. NGOs see the military as a source of threat to the civilian population and peace and stability in general. First of all, the confrontation in this format can turn into a political plane when NGOs begin to use their activists to draw public attention to real or alleged violations committed by the military, which can affect the reduction of support for ongoing operations from society and politicians. Various actions may also be organized to block the movement of military equipment or cargo shipments, which may complicate operations ^[16]. It is often difficult to distinguish this type of counteraction from the activities of NGOs in the interests of external forces, since similar methods are used, the difference lies only in the motives.

Based on the above, a number of conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, the available literature deals in detail mainly with two types of interaction - partnership and neutrality, support only in the format of ensuring the security of NGOs, and confrontation is only indirectly affected in the field of political struggle. Therefore, a more in-depth study of other types of interaction is necessary. Secondly, unlike Western countries, in the current conditions, the Russian Armed Forces face a full range of types of interactions with NGOs, which causes a high complexity of the configuration of relations and requires significant efforts to ensure effective cooperation and reduce risks and threats. Thirdly, partnership through the use of coordinating bodies seems to be the optimal format for interaction, since this ensures a sufficient level of contacts to solve the tasks facing both the Armed Forces and NGOs, but at the same time preserves the autonomy necessary to preserve functional identity. Despite the fact that interaction in the support format may seem attractive, in practice it leads to the fact that actors are engaged in non-core tasks, which is appropriate only at critical moments for the operational solution of existing problems, but in the long term it can reduce the effectiveness of both the Armed Forces and NGOs.

In relation to the Russian realities, it seems important to pay more attention to the issues of interaction between the Armed Forces and NGOs in areas of armed conflict, for which a number of measures can be taken to improve the coherence of actions and counter external and internal threats. First of all, it is necessary to establish a dialogue between representatives of the armed forces and NGOs by setting clear goals, creating platforms for exchanging views and developing interaction regulations, which will ensure cooperation on an ongoing basis and effective coordination in crisis situations. In areas of armed conflict, it is necessary to create bodies for the coordination of humanitarian activities, an example of which is the Center for Reconciliation of Warring Parties and Control over the Movement of Refugees in the Syrian Arab Republic, but within the framework of such bodies, greater participation of NGOs and delegation of most of the humanitarian functions to them is necessary. Studying the experience of the creation of such bodies by Western countries during recent armed conflicts could also make it possible to develop additional recommendations on the use of successful practices and avoiding the repetition of mistakes. At the same time, one of the problems is the relatively small number of Russian NGOs engaged in international activities, so the military has to interact mainly with foreign organizations, which can complicate the implementation of the tasks set. Therefore, it is necessary to support at the state level the activities of those existing NGOs that are ready to respond to crises abroad, and work to create conditions for the emergence of new organizations. It is also an important task to develop mechanisms to counter NGOs acting in the interests of unfriendly States that may pose a significant threat in combat zones.

Summing up, it can be noted that in the conditions of modern armed conflicts, military personnel and NGO employees have to work closely together to solve the tasks they face. It is obvious that in the future the activity of non-profit organizations will only increase and their participation in future conflicts will expand, so the armed forces should be ready to build cooperation with them and resist emerging challenges and threats. In turn, NGOs should pay attention to the introduction of best practices of interaction to improve the efficiency of their activities and ensure the safety of their employees. In order to solve these problems, it is necessary to further study various aspects of interaction both on the basis of foreign and Russian experience in order to develop best practices.