This month marks the tenth anniversary of the takeover of the Syrian town of Palmyra by ISIS, where fighters destroyed and looted parts of Syria’s ancient heritage site. Staff from The Halo Trust, the landmine clearance charity I run, have just conducted reconnaissance work there, with a view to clearing the site of mines and explosives so it can be protected and one day welcome tourists again.
In similar vein, Halo has made safe Afghanistan’s historic Bala Hissar fort in Kabul and the 15th-century Musalla Minarets in Herat. We also removed hundreds of mines laid in 1967 around the baptism site of Jesus on the River Jordan, allowing the return of pilgrims and tourists. This work removing explosives not only saves lives but protects precious heritage, allowing people to rebuild their countries and develop their economies.
And it has never been in greater demand. From Myanmar to Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Sahel, the Middle East and Ukraine, war stalks the earth.
Analysis by the Peace Research Institute Oslo suggests that the number, intensity and length of conflicts worldwide is at its highest level since before the end of the Cold War. The study found that there were 55 active conflicts. In all, around two billion people live in areas affected by conflict.
At the same time, multilateral peace processes have stalled. Local actors are more powerful, and geopolitics more divided. And nothing drives people into poverty, danger and displacement more than endless cycles of armed violence.
In this insecure world, budgets for humanitarian aid are being slashed or repurposed for defence. This has happened first in the US and UK, with other western donor governments expected to follow suit.
As a former soldier and now chief executive of Halo, I am the only ex-general running a UK NGO. I do not come from a traditional humanitarian background, and I do not necessarily subscribe to humanitarian orthodoxies. My view of the world is necessarily rooted in my experience as a soldier. I certainly believe that Europe does need to defend itself. I therefore believe in rearmament as a means to protect democracy and sovereignty.
Last month, I addressed the Dubai International Humanitarian Aid and Development conference and called on the aid community to develop innovative thinking rather than simply bemoan reductions in foreign aid. Halo, like other organisations, needs to adjust to the new reality and set out a role for humanitarian organisations in a multipolar world.
Innovative thinking on aid must include the premise that defence spending and humanitarian intervention are linked. Defence is the projection of hard power. Aid is often portrayed as soft power. The mine-clearing and bomb disposal work of the Halo Trust sits somewhere between the two – helping clean up after the use of hard power. But both aid and defence help to make for a safer and more stable world.
It helps to think of the three elements of foreign affairs: defence, diplomacy and development. These might be defined as the coercive, the persuasive and the altruistic means by which governments can achieve their foreign policy objectives.
The theory of change that previously justified the money spent on overseas aid was that, in acting altruistically, donor countries could help address evident wrongs in beneficiary countries – reducing poverty and infant mortality, improving the lives of women, giving children access to education and a host of other outcomes with evident moral value enshrined in the Sustainable Development Goals.
But with the consensus on aid fracturing, the question therefore arises whether donor countries should move altruistic aid expenditure closer to the coercive and persuasive branches of government. In essence, would aid money be better utilised if better integrated with defence and diplomacy, helping to stabilise the many countries of the world now subject to conflict?
Organisations like Halo need to make the case that defence and aid are two sides of the same coin – both make donor nations safer, while alleviating suffering. Halo’s work clearing mines and managing weapons stops them falling into the wrong hands, fuelling endless cycles of violence and instability.
We also need to think more creatively about the sources of funding for humanitarian action. One of the reasons I was in Dubai is because the reduction in funding from western donors is an opportunity for new players, with their own strategic priorities to wield more influence on the direction and delivery of aid.
The Gulf is increasingly the crossroads for partnerships and action in tackling the issues of our time. We can’t do more with less, but we can do things differently through innovation, new alliances and smart, compassionate action to help those in need while also fostering stability and prosperity.
