Introduction

With the securitisation of aid, the changing nature of conflict and the connecting and informing effects of globalisation, the increasing intersection between military and humanitarian is becoming recognised as an important global security issue. While NGOs and militaries are inherently different actors, the role of each is evolving in response to changes in both the environments they work in and approaches to meeting development and security challenges. These changes bring with them the ever-increasing likelihood of working in the same space and thus needing at the very least to be aware of each other's actions, though the spectrum of engagement ranges from collaborating to deliver assistance, to an absolute rejection of contact.

Discourse on civil-military interaction tends to view militaries as dominant partners in the relationship in light of their authority to carry out government policy and their focus on specific tasks and the strategies required to complete them. The civilian side of the interaction is most often understood as government and government agencies, and sometimes police. Only rarely are civil society, private enterprise and non-government organisations seriously addressed under the ‘civilian’ banner, despite the fact that each of these groups plays an important role in achieving and sustaining the stability and return to normality that are key to the broad military end-goal of creating an environment that is secure enough for them to withdraw completely.

This chapter explores the key non-governmental and military approaches to interaction, and how these point to civilian leadership in humanitarian environments. A range of guidelines, doctrine and policies provide clear frameworks for interaction, but NGOs and militaries are comprised of human individuals, whose experience, attitudes and beliefs shape their engagement, and these must also be understood when considering interaction. This discussion therefore explores NGO-military interaction and how it can be reframed to improve outcomes for communities, drawing on qualitative research with NGO and military personnel as well as civilian and military guidelines. Pointing to military doctrine and humanitarian guidelines, the chapter illuminates the primacy given to NGOs in most non-military guides, but points to ways in which military goals appear to have precedence. Reflecting on the claim that NGOs are the military's ‘force multipliers’ – additional tools that increase the impact of the military force – it argues that even turning this concept around is unhelpful. What is needed instead is greater clarity around humanitarian and humanitarian-like action and actors.