LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Autumn 2007

by Bert Koenders

RELATED ARTICLES:

---

Sir,

I wholeheartedly support João Gomes Cravinho’s observation that security is necessary for development in fragile states and that development is a prerequisite for security. I further agree that the EU’s security and development policies should become more aligned to achieve these linked objectives. Indeed, it is now abundantly clear that donors need to translate their political support for linking security and development into concrete action. More integrated policy responses and amalgamated working practices in the field are essential if we are to meet the Millennium Development Goals.

This is particularly critical given the scale of the development challenge that confronts the world’s fragile states. It is estimated that around 8% of the global population and no less than 27% of the world’s poorest people live in such states. Their problems are complex because the causes of state “fragility” – including insecurity – are broad in scope and interconnected. Only coherent security and development policy responses that are based upon sound insight into the situation on the ground can hope to make a difference in these circumstances.

While official recognition of the connection between security and development is frequent, it is still rare to find effective implementation of its practical implications. One recent advance on this front came at the April meeting of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, when my colleagues and I endorsed the Handbook on Security Sector Reform (SSR) which strongly links theory with practice. This now needs to be put into effect. Integrated policy responses such as the 3D (defence, diplomacy and development) and the “whole-of-government” approaches have also come a long way. However, more analysis and insight are still required, which is why Cravinho’s call for a policy-oriented research agenda is so welcome.

Meanwhile, I feel we are making good progress on interdepartmental cooperation here in the Netherlands. The minister of defence and I are strongly committed to ensuring that international operations involving Dutch military expertise and capacity is, when appropriate, grounded in a development perspective. For example, our joint visit to Afghanistan underlined our understanding that there is no military solution to the challenges facing that country. Additional good practices in the Netherlands include the availability of mixed funding (Official Development Assistance (ODA) and non-ODA), which is flexible and yet properly separated, and regular cross-secondment of military and development staff.

Our integrated policy response is already operating in the field. For example, on the basis of good analysis, the Netherlands is helping the government of Burundi to develop a comprehensive approach to the country’s security issues. Questions of national security are considered from a development perspective and vice versa. Diplomats, military personnel, police and development officers all work closely together, respecting each others competence and without worrying about ODA-eligibility.

I believe that such positive results on the ground must be the common driver of EU member states, the Commission and the High Representative. Policy inconsistencies resulting from institutional gaps cannot be allowed impede the realisation of the Millennium Development Goals.