Following 23 years of war, the Afghan people are among the poorest and most vulnerable in the world. Millions of Afghans are displaced within and outside the country; 268,000 children under five die each year from treatable diseases such as diarrhea; life expectancy at birth is 46 years; clean water is available to less than 15 percent of the population. The need for effective assistance provided by the international community is paramount.

The current situation in Afghanistan, where both the UN-sponsored International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) and coalition forces are involved in civil affairs projects (projects with a humanitarian component), forms part of a growing military involvement in humanitarian provision since the start of the 1990s. Military operations with humanitarian components include interventions in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and East Timor among others. This trend -- which now encompasses military civil affairs teams in Afghanistan -- has been watched with concern by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), since it raises fundamental questions about differences between humanitarian action and actors and military action and actors.

NGOs operating in Afghanistan are particularly alarmed about the confusion created in the minds of Afghans by armed coalition soldiers taking part in civil affairs operations while dressing and operating similarly to NGOs. NGOs are concerned that such confusion could undermine the effectiveness and safety of non-governmental humanitarian actors.

For the majority of NGOs in Afghanistan, the principles of humanity, independence, and impartiality are cornerstones of their programs, and the application of these principles ensures acceptance and access to populations most at risk, often in circumstances that would prevent assistance and support by other actors. Thus, in the past, NGOs have frequently been able to negotiate access to civilians on all sides of the conflict in Afghanistan, and carry out vital humanitarian and lifesaving work. To support their independence and impartiality, NGOs endeavor not to act as instruments of government foreign policy, and believe that assistance should not be driven by the political interest of any particular donor .

On the other hand, civil affairs programs being carried out by troops from countries that are still involved in armed conflict inside Afghanistan can be seen as neither independent nor impartial interventions. These troops are instruments of governments' foreign policies and, as such, clearly represent a very different view of how and why humanitarian assistance is provided. The provision of aid and assistance by armed personnel in civilian dress who are operating under a military campaign risks confusing humanitarian aid with military action.

The fact that these personnel are not clearly identified as military actors represents a real threat that they will be seen as related to, or an extension of, the NGO and assistance community, thus creating confusion about the independence and impartiality of humanitarian actors. Any confusion of mandates in the minds of the Afghan people may cause problems of access and security for NGO actors, with implications for longer-term humanitarian, development, and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.

The NGO community is also concerned that humanitarian action may be seen as a front for intelligence gathering by coalition forces. (If military civil affairs teams come across important military information during the course of their work, it is assumed that this information will be fed into the relevant military intelligence stream).

NGOs would like to ensure that these fundamental differences in mandate and approach between humanitarian and military actors are widely understood, recognized and accepted as the cornerstone of accessing populations in need of assistance and protection.

International military forces -- particularly ISAF -- can play a vital role in stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan. These forces should focus their efforts on assisting Afghan authorities in creating and maintaining a secure environment in which humanitarian aid can be delivered, the transition to an elected, constitutional government can be sustained, and the reconstruction of the country can be started.

It is recommended that the military focus on those activities in which they have specific competency: in addition to providing a reassuring security presence for both the local population and nascent government, international military forces in Afghanistan are well qualified to undertake such important tasks as training a new multi-ethnic and non-political national army, assisting and monitoring local forces in their efforts to maintain security, and assisting in the disposal of unexploded ordnance, landmines and other armaments.

International and national relief and development organizations have long experience and established networks in Afghanistan, and are generally better placed to deliver effective assistance. Therefore, it is normally not appropriate for the military to directly implement humanitarian activities when humanitarian agencies are present and capable of delivering services. If international military forces in Afghanistan decide nonetheless to go beyond their security responsibilities to involve themselves in civil affairs projects, then the NGO community recommends that they focus on projects where military engineering expertise could be usefully applied, for example, in repairing key infrastructure that will contribute significantly towards the overall humanitarian effort.

Above all, it is extremely important that international military forces in Afghanistan act, at all times, in such a way to maintain a clear distinction between military and civilian actors. In a highly volatile situation like Afghanistan, the already significant risks faced by civilian humanitarian aid workers could be increased if the local population is not able to clearly distinguish between humanitarian aid workers and soldiers. It is important for the highest levels of political and military authorities to understand and acknowledge the potential risk to aid workers, and to communicate this understanding down the chain of command.

To minimize the risk to aid workers of blurred distinctions, it is vital that transparency be maintained in any military involvement in civil affairs operations. Soldiers (and intelligence officers) should in no case claim to be in Afghanistan as ‘humanitarian workers'. In addition, all military personnel involved in conducting civil affairs operations should be in uniform and clearly identifiable as soldiers at all times. The humanitarian community objects in the strongest possible terms to armed soldiers dressing in civilian clothes in order to engage in civil affairs assistance programs.