6 So You're Negotiating... Now What?

6.2 Possible Implications of Humanitarian Negotiations with Armed Groups

In addition to their intended positive humanitarian impacts, humanitarian negotiations can have unintended or unanticipated consequences for humanitarian organizations; the armed groups; and third-party stakeholders (for example, those the humanitarian actors seek to assist).

Some possible implications of humanitarian negotiations with armed groups, and suggestions for how to mitigate these consequences, include:

1. Changes in perceived neutrality and impartiality of humanitarian actors engaged in negotiations:

Humanitarian negotiations with armed groups can generate or reinforce a perception by other armed groups, the host government, and/or other States that the humanitarian organization is biased or lacking impartiality.

To mitigate this negative perception, humanitarian actors must clearly communicate the objectives and the scope of the negotiations with armed groups, and must communicate and negotiate with all parties to a given conflict. Humanitarian agencies must make it explicitly clear that the negotiations: (i) are focused solely on humanitarian issues; (ii) are not a substitute for political negotiations; and (iii) do not confer legitimacy or recognition on the armed group.

2. Impacts on humanitarian security:

The very act of entering into negotiations with an armed group can have potentially serious consequences for the security of the negotiators themselves, colleagues in the parent and/ or other humanitarian organizations, and the populations the humanitarian actors serve.

The security risks associated with humanitarian negotiations should be assessed prior to entering into negotiations. Negotiators can draw on the experience of qualified field security officers and knowledge of the armed group's tactics and previous approaches to negotiating with humanitarian organizations.

Physical security risks can be mitigated to some extent by meeting with the armed group in a neutral location/venue; by requesting security guarantees from the armed group prior to entering into negotiations; and by ensuring that all necessary parties are informed of the humanitarian negotiations (e.g. the host country government should be informed of humanitarian negotiations with armed groups).

3. Third-party influence and 'sanctions' on humanitarian negotiators:

Parties external to the humanitarian negotiations may attempt to exert pressure on the humanitarian organization to limit or cease contacts with armed groups, or may attempt to influence the humanitarian negotiations in pursuit of political objectives. Host country governments, third-party States and regional organizations, among others, may seek to apply pressure or otherwise sanction the humanitarian organization negotiating with an armed group.

Host country governments may see the contacts between humanitarian organizations and armed groups as legitimizing the armed group, or as recognizing de facto territorial control exerted by the armed group. When some armed groups are labeled as “terrorist” groups by a State or States, there may be added pressure, including restrictions to funds or potentially legal sanctions through national judicial courts, to refrain from negotiating with the armed group. ⁴⁴

Attempts to constrain or limit the scope of action of humanitarian organizations in negotiations with armed groups can be mitigated to some degree by:

• Engaging in parallel advocacy efforts and bilateral humanitarian diplomacy with regional organizations, the host country government, and neighbouring States to gain support for the humanitarian negotiations. These efforts may be best undertaken by a political delegate representing the United Nations in the country (e.g. Special Representative of the Secretary-General).
  
• Ensuring that the objectives and process of negotiating with the armed group are effectively communicated to those actors that may seek to exert pressure to constrain the negotiations.
  
• [For the host country government in particular] presenting the humanitarian negotiations as a necessary component of humanitarian action. For UN agencies, humanitarian negotiations with armed groups have been recognized by the UN General Assembly as a legitimate and appropriate approach to securing humanitarian outcomes. This role may need to be highlighted in interactions with the host country government on the issue of humanitarian negotiations with armed groups. ⁴⁵
  
• Building consensus and support across humanitarian organizations active in the country/region on the need for humanitarian negotiations with an armed group.

Finally, if negotiating with an armed group is deemed a humanitarian necessity, then the designation of that group as a “terrorist” group by some States or institutions should not automatically preclude negotiations with the group. ⁴⁶ As with negotiations with all armed groups, negotiations with those that employ terror tactics must focus solely on humanitarian issues and not on the political demands or aspirations of the armed group.

__________________________

⁴⁴This point was highlighted in the 2004 Report of the UN Secretary-General on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict: ” The designation of certain non-State armed groups as terrorist organizations has had an adverse impact on opportunities for humanitarian negotiations. The prohibition on dialogue with armed groups in Colombia, for example, has resulted in severe restrictions on access to populations in need.” See: United Nations Security Council, Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict , UN Document ref. S/2004/431 (New York: United Nations, 28 May 2004): Paragraph 41.
⁴⁵ See, for example, UN General Assembly resolution 46/182 (19 December 1991): Paragraph 35.
⁴⁶ Criteria for adopting a more cautions approach to humanitarian negotiations with particular groups are outlined in Section 2.2.