Case Study: Confusion, but then clarification, of UN political and humanitarian roles in Angola

There was no clear strategy for negotiating humanitarian access in Angola in the months immediately following the resumption of fighting between UNITA and government forces in September 1992. This renewed fighting followed rejection by UNITA of the September 1992 election outcome.

In response to worsening humanitarian conditions, the UN Security Council passed resolution 811 (12 March 1993) which called on parties to the conflict to allow unimpeded access to those in need, and mandated the SRSG to “coordinate humanitarian assistance with the resources at her disposal.” This resolution provided the mandate for the SRSG to conduct humanitarian negotiations, at a time when she was also facilitating political negotiations. Concerns about this linkage between political and humanitarian negotiations lead the Department of Humanitarian Affairs to set up a Humanitarian Assistance Coordination Unit (UCAH) in April 1993.

UCAH's mandate included negotiation of humanitarian access and protection of humanitarian space. The UN Humanitarian Coordinator directing UCAH drew up an Emergency Relief Plan (ERP) for humanitarian assistance, to which both parties to the conflict subsequently agreed, if only in principle.

By establishing itself as a distinct humanitarian entity, thereby severing the linkages between political and humanitarian negotiations, UCAH played a central role in negotiations with the Government of Angola and UNITA on humanitarian issues, and worked to maintain a neutral and impartial posture by referring issues of a political nature to the SRSG. ¹⁶

Points to Remember — Humanitarian Negotiations: Motivations and Partners

MOTIVATIONS

• For humanitarian actors, the overall objective of humanitarian negotiations should be to secure the cooperation of an armed group in reaching an agreed outcome or understanding that will facilitate or enhance humanitarian action.


• For humanitarian actors, the overall objective of humanitarian negotiations should be to secure the cooperation of an armed group in reaching an agreed outcome or understanding that will facilitate or enhance humanitarian action.


• Collateral process-related motivations: (i) building trust and confidence between the parties, and (ii) the process of negotiation can have a multiplier effect in terms of involving armed groups in a wider dialogue that may bring additional benefits.

SUBSTANTIVE AREAS FOR NEGOTIATION

• To secure humanitarian access to reach those in need;


• To seek agreement on ground rules;


• To agree on rules and behaviour of belligerents that will improve the protection of civilians in areas under the control or influence of armed groups;


• To safeguard humanitarian security;


• To secure the release of persons being held by armed groups against their will;


• To secure agreement on special protection areas or periods.

KNOWING WHEN TO ADOPT A MORE CAUTIOUS APPROACH TO NEGOTIATIONS

• Then there is a likelihood that negotiations could negatively impact humanitarian conditions or jeopardize the security of the beneficiaries.


• When the negotiations put the lives of the armed group interlocutors at risk.


• When armed groups attempt to use humanitarian negotiations to enhance their perceived legitimacy.


• When armed groups are believed to be playing several humanitarian actors off against each other for their own gain.


• When the armed group attaches conditions for the implementation of an agreement that could adversely affect the civilian population.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ARMED GROUPS

• They: (1) have the potential to employ arms in the use of force for political, ideological, or economic objectives; (2) have a group identity, and act in pursuit of their objectives as a group; (3) are not within the formal military structures of States, State-alliances or intergovernmental organizations; (4) are not under the command or control of the State(s) in which they operate; and (5) are subject to a chain of command (formal or informal).


• Consideration of the following characteristics of armed groups can increase the efficiency of the negotiations as well as the desired outcomes: (a) motivations; (b) structure; (c) principles of action; (d) interests; (e) constituency; (f) needs; (g) ethno-cultural dimensions; (h) control of population and territory (Annex I).

HUMANITARIAN PARTNERS IN NEGOTIATIONS

• One or more lead negotiators should be identified who should act as the primary representative(s) of humanitarian agencies.


• The humanitarian negotiations and their underlying humanitarian objectives should remain distinct from political and other negotiations.


• Humanitarian agencies (especially those within the UN system) should agree on the process and intended outcome of the negotiations.