.
As the world closed the books on the Millennium Development Goals last year (MDGs), there was much to celebrate. Remarkably, the international community cut extreme poverty in half, 90 percent of countries have more women in parliament since 1995, and 2.6 billion people have gained access to improved drinking water, to name just a few of the many global successes.
Yet, other results were not as encouraging. Among the most troubling trends was the inability to build peace as a framework for poverty alleviation. States impacted by armed conflict typically have had the highest rates of poverty over the last fifteen years. In fact, the rate of children not attending school in conflict-ridden countries increased from 30 percent in 1996 to 36 percent in 2012. Looking ahead, conflict is expected to be a magnet for poverty and where people suffer most threats to global peace and security will rise in the shape of terrorist organizations and transnational organized criminals with regional and sometimes global reach.
The links between security and development have been thoroughly and clearly identified by numerous diplomats, analysts, and donor countries, as well as felt first hand in developing nations. However, to date, the peace and development community have not been able to manage the perils of building and maintaining peace as an antidote to poverty. In the last few years, perhaps in recognition of the necessity of outside assistance, unlikely partners – including national militaries and the global security community – have been called upon to contribute.
This new approach has been met with some resistance and arguments that engaging security organizations is the ultimate path to militarizing peace and development. These concerns are overstated. In fact, a more holistic and collaborative approach to peace and development is not only a smart path to achieve those objectives, but have been underway for many years. Most recently peace and security capacity building as a path to development was recently codified in one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, Goal 16, which includes targets such as the reduction of illicit finance and arms flows, trafficking, terrorism, and all forms of violence.
Consider the following examples of peace, security and military organizations working together or incorporating each other’s mandates to build sustainable peace, security and development for mutual benefit.
U.S. SOUTHCOM has prioritized interagency collaboration and partnerships for years to combat illicit trafficking, transnational organized crime, maritime security, disaster preparedness, and humanitarian relief, all which have positive knock-off effects for peace and development. In 2014, for example, and in close coordination with USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, SOUTHCOM used $1.7 million civil-military funds to construct disaster relief facilities in Paraguay. In addition to infrastructure, SOUTHCOM provided equipment and training to ensure full operability.
In the same vein, the UK published their new global development strategy in November 2015, which allocates resources to security goals in support of sustainable development in fragile states and regions. This was followed by, in early 2016, the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) decision to widen its definition of official development assistance (ODA) to include certain security and defense costs, including measures to prevent violent extremism and to provide limited military training.
For countries like Japan, this evolution has been underway for quite some time. Tokyo is executing a hybrid capacity-building policy that they refer to as “strategic use of aid,” which transcends the traditional security or development boundaries. Through ODA or other grant aid programs, Japan has donated various defense technologies to developing countries, such as Indonesia and Jordan, not to build military capacity, but rather to address pressing development needs.
In Latin America, and using a somewhat different tactic, Brazil launched Operation Agata 5 in 2012, utilizing the military to tackle transnational border crime, such as illegal logging, mining, and drug trafficking, through collaborative law enforcement efforts. The military takes the lead with assistance from environmental protection and customs agencies, intelligence officials, and state and national police. Through Operation Agata 5, Brazil cuts down on criminal activity in an environment that provides lower risk tactical training for its military. Combining incentives from both the security and development communities, this could serve as a cost-effective model for achieving SDG Goal 16 targets.
It is not only military and security organizations that implement a more holistic approach to peace, security and development. Initiatives like the UNDP Joint Rule of Law Programme, which strengthens civilian police, and the UNODC, which counters transnational crime, corruption, and terrorism through various supply chain security projects, also benefit development.
While adjusting to the changing relationship between security and development may be challenging, the path forward is clearly a more collaborative approach within and outside of the public sector. Some nongovernmental organizations are already picking up on this trend. For example, a former Special Operations Sniper and Clearance Diver in the Australian Defense Force founded the International Anti-Poaching Foundation to train rangers and integrate modern (and sometimes defense) technology into conservation efforts. In a world where wildlife crime represents a conservation, development and security issues – proceeds from the trade ends up in the hands of transnational criminals and even terrorist organizations – security resources are a welcome addition.
To that end, President Barack Obama issued the National Strategy for Combatting Wildlife Trafficking in 2014, which has spurred extensive interagency cooperation on the issue. For example, AFRICOM, USAID, Department of State, and the CBP are establishing an Ivory and Narcotics Detection Canine Program with the Tanzanian Police Force to tackle trafficking of illegal wildlife and narcotics in Dar es Salaam. AFRICOM also currently partnered with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct a needs assessment of anti-poaching and wildlife trafficking efforts in the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In fact, AFRICOM has long engaged the private sector and USAID in seeking solutions to threats that emerge from the undercurrents of globalization.
In a world where peace, development and security are inarguably connected, we should not only give peace a chance, we must also pragmatically accept and identify new and expanding opportunities to work with militaries and the global security establishments around the world. The Sustainable Development Goals are a great platform from which to further operationalize a more holistic approach to global peace and development.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
a global affairs media network
A Peace Agenda On a Military Mission
World map painted on hands isolated on white
June 30, 2016
As the world closed the books on the Millennium Development Goals last year (MDGs), there was much to celebrate. Remarkably, the international community cut extreme poverty in half, 90 percent of countries have more women in parliament since 1995, and 2.6 billion people have gained access to improved drinking water, to name just a few of the many global successes.
Yet, other results were not as encouraging. Among the most troubling trends was the inability to build peace as a framework for poverty alleviation. States impacted by armed conflict typically have had the highest rates of poverty over the last fifteen years. In fact, the rate of children not attending school in conflict-ridden countries increased from 30 percent in 1996 to 36 percent in 2012. Looking ahead, conflict is expected to be a magnet for poverty and where people suffer most threats to global peace and security will rise in the shape of terrorist organizations and transnational organized criminals with regional and sometimes global reach.
The links between security and development have been thoroughly and clearly identified by numerous diplomats, analysts, and donor countries, as well as felt first hand in developing nations. However, to date, the peace and development community have not been able to manage the perils of building and maintaining peace as an antidote to poverty. In the last few years, perhaps in recognition of the necessity of outside assistance, unlikely partners – including national militaries and the global security community – have been called upon to contribute.
This new approach has been met with some resistance and arguments that engaging security organizations is the ultimate path to militarizing peace and development. These concerns are overstated. In fact, a more holistic and collaborative approach to peace and development is not only a smart path to achieve those objectives, but have been underway for many years. Most recently peace and security capacity building as a path to development was recently codified in one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, Goal 16, which includes targets such as the reduction of illicit finance and arms flows, trafficking, terrorism, and all forms of violence.
Consider the following examples of peace, security and military organizations working together or incorporating each other’s mandates to build sustainable peace, security and development for mutual benefit.
U.S. SOUTHCOM has prioritized interagency collaboration and partnerships for years to combat illicit trafficking, transnational organized crime, maritime security, disaster preparedness, and humanitarian relief, all which have positive knock-off effects for peace and development. In 2014, for example, and in close coordination with USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, SOUTHCOM used $1.7 million civil-military funds to construct disaster relief facilities in Paraguay. In addition to infrastructure, SOUTHCOM provided equipment and training to ensure full operability.
In the same vein, the UK published their new global development strategy in November 2015, which allocates resources to security goals in support of sustainable development in fragile states and regions. This was followed by, in early 2016, the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) decision to widen its definition of official development assistance (ODA) to include certain security and defense costs, including measures to prevent violent extremism and to provide limited military training.
For countries like Japan, this evolution has been underway for quite some time. Tokyo is executing a hybrid capacity-building policy that they refer to as “strategic use of aid,” which transcends the traditional security or development boundaries. Through ODA or other grant aid programs, Japan has donated various defense technologies to developing countries, such as Indonesia and Jordan, not to build military capacity, but rather to address pressing development needs.
In Latin America, and using a somewhat different tactic, Brazil launched Operation Agata 5 in 2012, utilizing the military to tackle transnational border crime, such as illegal logging, mining, and drug trafficking, through collaborative law enforcement efforts. The military takes the lead with assistance from environmental protection and customs agencies, intelligence officials, and state and national police. Through Operation Agata 5, Brazil cuts down on criminal activity in an environment that provides lower risk tactical training for its military. Combining incentives from both the security and development communities, this could serve as a cost-effective model for achieving SDG Goal 16 targets.
It is not only military and security organizations that implement a more holistic approach to peace, security and development. Initiatives like the UNDP Joint Rule of Law Programme, which strengthens civilian police, and the UNODC, which counters transnational crime, corruption, and terrorism through various supply chain security projects, also benefit development.
While adjusting to the changing relationship between security and development may be challenging, the path forward is clearly a more collaborative approach within and outside of the public sector. Some nongovernmental organizations are already picking up on this trend. For example, a former Special Operations Sniper and Clearance Diver in the Australian Defense Force founded the International Anti-Poaching Foundation to train rangers and integrate modern (and sometimes defense) technology into conservation efforts. In a world where wildlife crime represents a conservation, development and security issues – proceeds from the trade ends up in the hands of transnational criminals and even terrorist organizations – security resources are a welcome addition.
To that end, President Barack Obama issued the National Strategy for Combatting Wildlife Trafficking in 2014, which has spurred extensive interagency cooperation on the issue. For example, AFRICOM, USAID, Department of State, and the CBP are establishing an Ivory and Narcotics Detection Canine Program with the Tanzanian Police Force to tackle trafficking of illegal wildlife and narcotics in Dar es Salaam. AFRICOM also currently partnered with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct a needs assessment of anti-poaching and wildlife trafficking efforts in the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In fact, AFRICOM has long engaged the private sector and USAID in seeking solutions to threats that emerge from the undercurrents of globalization.
In a world where peace, development and security are inarguably connected, we should not only give peace a chance, we must also pragmatically accept and identify new and expanding opportunities to work with militaries and the global security establishments around the world. The Sustainable Development Goals are a great platform from which to further operationalize a more holistic approach to global peace and development.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
