A world facing crises
Worldwide, countries and regions are suffering from instability and open conflict. The internal organizations that are responsible to respond to instability, emergencies, and conflict scenarios within the countries affected are often not adequately prepared, sustainable or are non-existent:
- Limited formation of professional, culturally sensitive organizations (First responder, Security, Military, Aid).
- Reduced or non-existent formalized training programs.
- Reduced or non-existent capacities for Command, Control and Communications.
- Reduced or non-existent supplies and equipment.
- Limited capacity for effectively communicating with local populaces.
- Damaged infrastructure.
- Limited capacity for assessment, analysis and planning.
- Increased pressures resulting from surge growth of forces.
- Increased pressures resulting from displaced persons.
These gaps have been identified as existing globally in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Nigeria, Central African Republic, and Ukraine as a limited set of examples.
Major international organizations responsible for response to these types of challenges have failed to respond in a timely and effective manner, for both simple and complex reasons. Adding to that loss, active states who have traditionally engaged in peace support operations have been indecisive at critical moments in time.
When viewed in combination with the humanitarian crisis that has followed the conflicts taking place have left in their wake a refugee, and IDP crisis on a scale never before seen. The world can no longer sit back and watch without facing peril.
the same challenges
Compounding the instability that exists today, is the fact that states are continuing to not effectively address conflict in a manner that is modern in context. We therefore witness antiquanted models and concepts being revamped with a modern name and subsequently see nations and regions go on to implementation, along with the genuine belief that they will (again) achieve success. Essentially repeating old mistakes.
Traditionally, allied militaries and for-profit, private organizations have delivered defense development services to host countries and organizations in need. This happens often, and again, with for-profit organizations functioning under direct supporting contract with those allied forces (PMC’s, other Security Firms, Contracting Firms, Logistics Groups, Etc.). The proliferation of these entities seeking to make profit, personal and/or corporate gain, within conflict zones, has reduced the capacities of global efforts to affect positive change in a meaningful and effective manner on the scales required for the 21st century. Also problematic within this context, is the waste of foreign development and aid budgets resulting from this cycle of failed concepts.
Aid organizations, however, often represent the polar opposite of defence, military and security organizations, in that they often suffer from attacks, and unnecessary losses resulting from a lack of effective consideration and planning for bad scenarios often present in areas of instability. This perception has been changing somewhat with the expansion of military units, such as the Canadian Forces - Disaster Assistance Response Teams (DART), but aid organizations still see great losses in unstable areas.
An additional compounding factor is that there exists a high degree of competition and animosity between Nations and Organizations alike. Self-interests taking precedent over the mission.
We should rethink our concepts and reconceptualise our world. We have to change how we address conflict, humanitarian crisis, and global instability. It is time for a new plan.