Non-Governmental Organisations and Conflict

Introduction

The rise of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) as important players attempting to alleviate the occurrence and effects of conflict must be considered one of the most exciting recent developments in international politics. While the presence of NGOs in conflict zones is not new - the International Committee of the Red Cross was founded in 1863 to care for the victims of war - the increased range and scope of NGO activities in the 1990s to encompass functions traditionally practised by governments and international organisations indicates a significant broadening of their role and influence. At the same time, however, this bolstered status raises concerns surrounding the effectiveness, accountability and appropriateness of NGOs in carrying out these functions, prompting a discussion of both their potential and limits as actors in the peace and security arena.

NGOs and their Impact on International Politics

The Peace Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 - which ended the Thirty-Years-War, a religious battle between Catholics and Protestants that engulfed all of Europe's major powers - established a set of absolute principles that have since governed the international political order. Predicated on the centrality of State sovereignty, these principles include the concentration of power in the hands of States, territorially fixed States, a single authority governing each territory, and an anarchical international system with no authority above the State.

The UN Charter is rooted on these principles, affirming respect for State sovereignty and equality, and preventing interference in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of States. Nonetheless, in 1992 former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali recognised in An Agenda for Peace that 'the time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty has passed'. In this context, owing to their ability to transcend national borders and focus on issues of international concern, NGOs challenge this system by compelling national governments to share power, encouraging States to adopt particular courses of action, and enjoying a role and influence often greater than that of States. In short, NGOs are powerful new players on the global scene, calling into question the realist conception of international politics in which States are the only important actors.

NGOs in Conflict Zones

It is difficult to categorise NGOs due to the range of activities they perform and the broadness of their interests. The UN Department of Public Information describes NGOs vaguely as 'non-profit, task-orientated voluntary groups operating on a local, national or international level driven by people with common interests'. However, a better understanding of NGOs in conflict zones comes from distinguishing between those with a background in humanitarian aid-delivery - involved at a grassroots level for either the short-term provision of relief such as food, shelter and medicine and/or long-term social reconstruction and development - and those attempting to defuse conflicts through techniques such as third-party mediation.

Humanitarian NGOs

In the area of humanitarian relief, a fierce debate exists relating to the interface between humanitarian action and politics. Some organisations, such as Médecins Sans Frontiéres (MSF), imply that maintaining political neutrality in instances of human rights violations is tantamount to complicity with those violations. In fact, the failure of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to criticise the Nigerian government's part in starving the Biafrans in the early 1970s caused Bernard Kouchner to resign from the ICRC and establish MSF in 1971. While it is beyond the scope of this briefing to tackle the issue of neutrality fully, the divergent approaches of two of the most influential humanitarian NGOs introduce the complexity of this debate.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

The mandate and legal status of the ICRC separate it from both intergovernmental agencies like the UN as well as other NGOs. Its mandate, 'to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance', has been conferred on it by States through the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, giving it a legal standing in international humanitarian law. Moreover, in most countries where it works, its legal status is determined by Headquarters Agreements concluded with local authorities, which protect it from administrative and judicial proceedings. These agreements are pivotal to the functioning of the ICRC, in that the privileges and immunities granted the organisation through them guarantee the conditions fundamental to its mission statement: neutrality, impartiality and independence. These factors, coupled with the international scope of its work, give the ICRC a 'functional international personality' unique to the NGO community.

Médecins Sans Frontiéres (MSF)

In 1999, following the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to MSF, Kouchner commented 'I hope the prize marks the recognition of a type of humanitarian work in contrast to the traditional organisations'. A private international organisation comprising mainly of doctors and health workers, MSF aims to provide emergency medical relief, and fight injustice and persecution, by operating on the belief that victims of conflict have a right to humanitarian assistance irrespective of political factors. As its International Activity Report of 2000 stresses:

MSF refuses to wait for the approval of all parties before acting. It insists on the right to speak out in the face of human rights violations. Putting populations in danger first, above political considerations, is ingrained as our core mission - and in this MSF has helped to shape the humanitarian movement world-wide.

Thus, while its Charter points out that MSF 'observes neutrality and impartiality in the name of medical ethics', the interpretation of 'neutrality' differs substantially from that of the ICRC.

Conflict Resolution NGOs

The involvement of NGOs in a range of conflict prevention and resolution activities including early warning, mediation, strengthening the rule of law, and promoting democratic practices is a more recent development, and represents a significant broadening of their role and influence.

International Alert (IA)

A good example is the London-based NGO, IA, founded in 1985 by a group of human rights activists who maintained that the denial of human rights often leads to conflict. IA seeks to advance individual and collective human rights by identifying and addressing the root causes of violence and contributing to the peaceful transformation of conflicts. Focusing in particular on the Great Lakes Region of Central Africa, this involves the combination of a range of activities including the support of mediation efforts, development work in conjunction with local organisations, training conflict negotiators, and lobbying the international community to take notice of potential conflicts.

The Carter Center

Established by former US President Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalyn, in 1982, the Carter Center also exemplifies this new activism. The Center undertakes five activities that Carter had hoped to advance during his time in the White House: monitoring/mediating elections, promoting democracy and economic co-operation in the western hemisphere, finding peaceful solutions to civil conflicts, strengthening human rights and economic development in developing societies, and preventing human rights violations.

Owing to the active participation of the former President, the Center enjoys certain advantages over other NGOs engaging in these activities:

When he makes phone calls, the other party accepts them, when he needs assistance, academics, political leaders and grass roots leaders respond, and when he gives a press conference, the media cover it in high-profile ways.

Carter thus gives the Center access to publicity, Heads of State, religious leaders and senior personnel in international organisations, and his personal experiences of high-level diplomacy prove an invaluable asset.

His influence was particularly noticeable during the Center's intervention in North Korea in 1994. In the context of North Korea's withdrawal from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the US government pushed for UN sanctions fearing that North Korea was developing a nuclear weapons programme. Government officials in Pyongyang allowed a visit from Carter but refused to supply visas to Senators Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar, whom President Clinton had approached in connection with a mission to the Korean peninsula. North Korean President Kim Il Sung placed more importance on meeting Carter - who had followed Korean issues closely since his time in the White House and had periodically met with officials for years - than on meeting the two senators, presuming that Carter could better affect Washington's policies. After talks, President Kim agreed to freeze North Korea's nuclear programme, a concession that facilitated the resumption of dialogue with the USA.

The Center also projects a distinct style of 'Track I½' diplomacy. While governments engage in Track I or official diplomacy and NGOs pursue Track II or unofficial diplomatic activities, the Center occupies a unique middle ground as an NGO with access to Track I levels. Although this style of diplomacy has received some criticism for conferring a degree of legitimacy on individuals or groups that are responsible for human rights violations, the Center's efforts to mediate a resolution to the conflict in Sudan illustrate the merits of this technique.

From 1989, Carter mediated between the Sudanese government and the dominant rebel faction, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), in an effort to narrow their differences and promote peace. In 1995 he succeeded in brokering a humanitarian cease-fire that enabled the treatment of diseases in remote areas and provided an opportunity for children to be immunised against polio and other illnesses. More recently in 1999, Carter negotiated the Nairobi Agreement between the governments of Sudan and Uganda, which committed both sides to suspend their support for the warring factions. The combination of these initiatives helped pave the way for improved regional peacemaking efforts.

The Value of NGOs in Conflict Zones

In many respects, the rise of NGOs in conflict zones is a useful development owing to their comparative advantages over other actors in terms of their capacity to perform a range of activities.

NGOs enjoy legitimacy and operational access that limit concerns about sovereignty. While they cannot offer inducements like States or multilateral institutions, their lack of coercive power often makes them more attractive to disputing parties. They can also react to crises quickly and flexibly, have the operational capacity to reach the poorest people in the most remote locations, and operate on low costs.

Further, their lack of bureaucracy and independence - free of political and institutional limitations like a Constitution or the UN Charter - provides a crucial alternative to governments that are unwilling or unable to act. Finally, as the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict (1997) points out, a lack of mechanisms in place for governments and decision-making bodies to acquire systematic information that NGOs possess from years of involvement in conflict situations make their role in that regard crucial.

The Limits of NGOs in Conflict Zones

At least three limits can be determined regarding their operational effectiveness.

First, the involvement of NGOs in conflict zones can give rise to a number of unintended negative consequences, including: freeing up local relief resources for the continuation of violence; the diversion of aid to warring factions that supports their activities; creating false economies; and conferring legitimacy on warlords and leaders of factions. The intervention of NGOs in Somalia, for instance, actually exacerbated the conflict and refuelled the militarised political economy in Somali towns, as competing militia attempted to capture the spoils of humanitarian assistance.

Second, NGOs rely on funding from individual donors, foundations, corporations and governments. However, funding sources can attach conditions that seriously affect NGO policy and legitimacy. In June 2003, Mercy Corps and Save the Children - two of America's major aid agencies - refused US government money aimed at building democracy in Iraq because federal officials wanted to limit their independence to operate.

Third, the sheer number of NGOs involved in conflict zones leads to problems of duplication and co-ordination. In Bosnia, for example, nine agencies and departments of the US government attempt to co-operate with over a dozen other governments, seven international organisations, and 13 major NGOs - including the ICRC, the International Crisis Group and the American Bar Association - to implement the Dayton Peace Accords. This mix of actors creates a situation where the responsibility of each is blurred.

Promoting Accountability: The Sphere Project

In addition to the limits outlined above, NGOs are frequently challenged over their legitimacy and accountability to operate in conflict zones. NGOs must account to the victims they aid, to host governments, and to donors who fund their activities. Owing to the diversity of NGO interests, questions have been asked as to whether NGO activities can and should be regulated, and how their activities can be better co-ordinated. Individual organisations have attempted to legitimate their activities on an ad hoc basis, not least by making their funding arrangements more transparent.

However, in 1997 an international initiative was launched called the SPHERE project, which aims to improve the effectiveness and accountability of NGO responses to conflict. The project is designed to develop a set of universal minimum standards in five core areas of humanitarian assistance - water supply and sanitation, nutrition, food aid, shelter and site planning, and health services - as well as to co-ordinate activities in the field. Now in its third phase (2000-2004), the project has since its inception provided a forum for broad-based consultation between people from NGOs, governments and academic institutions, and has come to represent an inclusive, transparent and globally representative initiative.

NGOs and the UN

The UN system also provides a useful mechanism for promoting co-operation amongst NGOs, while at the same time advancing the UN agenda. Addressing the UN Special Session on Children in May 2002, Secretary-General Kofi Annan commented on the importance of NGOs at the UN:

You give life and meaning to the concept of 'We, the Peoples', in whose name the UN Charter was written. You are vital partners in pursuing the UN agenda of peace and development, and without you, we could not do what we do.

His remarks point to important aspects surrounding the interaction of NGOs with the UN System, the benefits of being associated with the UN, as well as the responsibilities that accompany it.

Many NGOs hold consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) based on Article 71 of the UN Charter, enabling ECOSOC to 'make suitable arrangements with non-governmental organisations which are concerned with matters within its competence'. Consultative status means that NGOs may be invited to attend UN meetings and conferences dealing with humanitarian issues, although it does not constitute an entitlement to do so and thus NGOs usually engage directly with State representatives. In addition, the Department of Public Information (DPI) has links with over 1,500 NGOs. On the one hand, this guarantees the UN valuable links to people and organisations around the world. NGOs make valuable contributions to the international community by drawing attention to issues, proposing ideas and responses, and mobilising public opinion in support of the UN, and association with the DPI constitutes a commitment to that effect:

NGOs are expected to devote a portion of their information programmes to promoting knowledge of the United Nations' principles and activities. They are expected to keep the DPI abreast of their activities by regularly providing samples of their information materials relating to the work of the UN.

Equally, NGOs benefit from the DPI-arranged annual NGO conference, and have a representative mechanism through the 18-member Executive Committee. This is elected by the DPI/NGO community to act in an advisory and liaison capacity to channel information and represent the interests of NGOs linked with the DPI.

Final Remarks

The bolstered role of NGOs in the 1990s has been matched by demands for greater engagement, making it increasingly difficult for NGOs to perform effectively in conflict zones and raising questions about their role in the future. Without better resources and co-ordination, NGOs could cease to maintain their relevance in carrying out security activities. However, their links with the UN as well as their efforts to improve their working practices suggest that NGOs will remain influential actors for the foreseeable future.

Author: Tim Pippard, Research Assistant, editor: Alex Ramsbotham, Head of Research.

This set of briefing papers has been financed by a donation in memory of Joy K B Wynn-Jones and Mary Owen. For a full publication list and more detailed information on the work of the Programme, please contact Alexander Ramsbotham, Head of Research, UN and Conflict Programme, UNA-UK, 3 Whitehall Court, London SW1A 2EL.

Tel: (switchboard) +44 (0)20 7766 3444 (direct line) +44 (0)20 7766 3446 Fax: +44 (0)20 7930 5893 E-mail: aramsbotham@una-uk.org.