Real Risk

[

] 28

ATO’

S RESPONSES TO

both Hurricane Katrina in the

United States and the South Asian earthquake in Pakistan

in 2005 propelled the alliance into the disaster-relief spot-

light. Although NATO has been involved in disaster relief since

the 1950s, such a high profile role is unusual. Moreover, some

analysts and commentators, including representatives of certain

allies, question whether this is an appropriate activity for the

alliance.

In the case of the assistance provided to the US, NATO made

a useful practical contribution and demonstrated alliance soli-

darity by offering hurricane victims much-needed supplies in their

hour of need. It was not, however, critical to the wider relief effort.

By contrast, NATO’s contribution to the Pakistan relief effort was

substantial. Indeed, if the many bilateral contributions of NATO

allies, and especially that of the US military, are added to the

NATO operation, the overall allied effort was critical to the wider

relief operation and helped save many lives.

Recent disasters have highlighted how useful certain military

capabilities can be when first responders find themselves over-

whelmed. Although the NATO operation in Pakistan clearly made

a great difference to the overall relief effort, it also raised a number

of questions. Why, for example, should military capabilities be

deployed in international disaster relief operations? Why should

NATO be involved? What added value can NATO bring to relief

efforts? And who should lead operations dealing with the conse-

quences of natural or industrial disasters?

Some commentators clearly believe that disaster relief work can

be done better and more economically by civilian actors, whether

they be national authorities, international organizations, or non-

governmental organizations. While this may be the case for most

disasters, there are unfortunately occasions when the scale of the

disaster is so great that first responders – local authority and/or

interior ministry forces – are simply overwhelmed. It is in these

instances that the military can and should become involved.

Indeed, helping national authorities in responding to natural or

industrial disasters is a fundamental mission of the armed forces

in most NATO (and non-NATO) countries.

Deploying military capabilities

The recent disasters in the US and Pakistan have highlighted how

useful certain military capabilities can be when first responders

find themselves overwhelmed. Strategic airlift is crucial to trans-

port urgently needed relief supplies as commercial aircraft are

not always available in sufficient numbers. Moreover, helicopters

have proven essential in the first phase of a disaster relief opera-

tion when roads are often too badly damaged to be passable and

sealift capabilities are critical to sustaining the relief effort in a

more cost-effective way in the weeks and months following a

disaster. Rapidly deployable military hospitals and medical

personnel can also help overburdened first responders. In addi-

tion, military engineers, water purification units and search and

rescue teams all have the skills that can greatly improve crisis

response capabilities and save lives.

While the military clearly has useful capabilities to bring to

disaster relief operations, such assistance should be provided

according to the principle of subsidiarity. Civil responders should

always be in the lead and must formally request military support.

It is demand-driven assistance, not a supply-driven relief contri-

bution. In principle, local authorities and/or the interior ministry

or other competent national body should ask for external, includ-

ing military, assistance, if and when they decide that the scale of

the disaster is too great for them to handle alone.

In the case of both Hurricane Katrina and the South Asian

earthquake, the respective national governments formally

requested NATO assistance. In addition, in the case of Pakistan,

the United Nations publicly and emphatically asked NATO for

assistance in putting together its own relief operation. As a result,

most of the crucial shelter material provided by the office of the

UN High Commissioner for Refugees was transported to Pakistan

via NATO’s air-bridge before the onset of the harsh Himalayan

winter.

NATO recognizes that the UN, specifically the UN Office for

the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA), should

always be in the lead, together with the authorities of the stricken

country, in any international disaster relief operation. Indeed,

NATO’s Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre

(EADRCC), the alliance’s principal crisis-response mechanism

involving 20 partner countries in addition to the 26 allies, hosts

a UN OCHA liaison officer, who advises NATO where necessary.

In the case of the Pakistan relief operation, NATO also partici-

pated in the overall coordination meetings in Islamabad, jointly

led by Pakistani government officials and the UN resident repre-

sentative, as well as in the relevant UN-led cluster meetings, such

as the health and shelter clusters.

NATO’s added value

If one recognizes that military capabilities may usefully be

deployed in disaster-response operations, the next issue to

address is that of NATO’s added value. Clearly, military contri-

butions do not have to come via NATO and may be made on a

bilateral basis. Moreover, decision-making in response to disasters

needs to be rapid and the alliance’s multilateral approach is in

theory slower than that of individual allies.

Given that no two disaster relief operations are identical and

that innovative and pragmatic solutions are almost invariably

required, it is not possible to say definitively that NATO should

automatically be involved or that individual allies should take the

lead. However, several factors should be taken into consideration.

NATO’s growing humanitarian role

Maurits Jochems, Deputy Assistant Secretary General, Operations Division, NATO