What about Peacekeepers? Deterring Attacks against Humanitarian Workers Marcellina Priadi Uppsala University Department of Peace & Conflict Research Master Thesis Summer 2017 Word Count: 18,208 Abstract This thesis seeks to understand the phenomenon of attacks against humanitarian workers by asking: why are humanitarian workers attacked in some contexts, but not in others? By exploring the effects of deterrence as a security strategy, this thesis investigates the direct link between causes of attacks against humanitarian workers and humanitarian security. It argues that when humanitarian organisations involve peacekeepers directly in their humanitarian relief activities, this is likely to lead to a decrease in attacks. This is because peacekeepers are armed and able to function as a capable and credible counterthreat against belligerents for humanitarian organisations. A game- like theoretic model of the decision-making sequence leading up to attacks in the humanitarian space is applied to illustrate this. The theoretical argument is tested quantitatively on freshly collated data on peacekeeping activities using a negative binomial count model. Unexpectedly however, the results reveal a contradictory relationship to the hypothesis. Directly involving peacekeepers in humanitarian relief activities is associated with an increase in attacks against humanitarian workers. The surprising results are found to be significant and robust overall. 2 Acknowledgements I would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone that has assisted and supported me throughout this research process. To my classmates, for the camaraderie we have shared during this time and the immeasurable ways they have helped me to grow. To my teachers, who have challenged my thoughts and built the foundation for this thesis. To the poor souls that have reviewed various versions of my thesis drafts; Kristina, Sara, Pernilla and Dino, I am enormously grateful for your feedback. A special thank you goes to my supervisor, Lisa, for providing invaluable guidance when I was lost in the woods (several times!). To my family, for always being there for me and Tobias, for keeping me sane. 3 Contents Page ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................... 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................ 3 CONTENTS PAGE ....................................................................................................................................... 4 TABLE OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... 5 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 6 2. PREVIOUS LITERATURE .................................................................................................................. 9 2.1 CAUSES OF ATTACKS ............................................................................................................................................................ 9 2.2 HUMANITARIAN SECURITY ............................................................................................................................................... 12 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................... 15 3.1 DETERRENCE IN A HUMANITARIAN SPACE ................................................................................................................. 16 3.2 DEFENDER’S COUNTERTHREAT ...................................................................................................................................... 20 3.3 COUNTERTHREAT EFFECTIVENESS ................................................................................................................................ 22 4. RESEARCH DESIGN ......................................................................................................................... 25 4.1 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................................... 25 4.2 POPULATION AND SCOPE .................................................................................................................................................. 25 4.3 DEPENDENT VARIABLE ................................................................................................................................................... 26 4.4 INDEPENDENT VARIABLE ................................................................................................................................................ 28 4.5 CONTROL VARIABLES........................................................................................................................................................ 31 4.6 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS .................................................................................................................................................. 33 4.7 MODEL .................................................................................................................................................................................. 35 5. ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................................ 37 5.1 MAIN ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................................. 37 5.2 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................................................................... 39 5.3 ROBUSTNESS TESTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 42 5.4 ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 45 5.5 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 48 6. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 51 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................... 53 4 Table of Figures FIGURE 2: TOTAL INCIDENTS OF ATTACKS AGAINST HUMANITARIAN WORKERS ........................................................ 9 FIGURE 2.2: SECURITY TRIANGLE .......................................................................................................................................... 13 FIGURE 3.1: UNILATERAL GAME OF GENERAL DETERRENCE .......................................................................................... 18 FIGURE 4.4: MEAN VALUES FOR THE IV COUNTERTHREAT .............................................................................................. 30 TABLE 4.6: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF THE DATA ........................................................................................................... 33 FIGURE 4.6.1: ATTACK INCIDENTS INVOLVING HUMANITARIAN WORKERS – FREQUENCY GRAPH ......................... 34 FIGURE 4.6.2: ATTACK INCIDENTS INVOLVING HUMANITARIAN WORKERS –SCATTER PLOT ................................... 35 TABLE 5.1: MAIN ANALYSIS MODELS ................................................................................................................................... 37 FIGURE 5.2: PREDICTED NUMBER OF ATTACKS................................................................................................................... 40 TABLE 5.3: ROBUSTNESS TESTS .............................................................................................................................................. 42 TABLE 5.3: ROBUSTNESS TESTS .............................................................................................................................................. 42 5 1. Introduction For both practitioners and policymakers, attacks against humanitarian workers are an unacceptable phenomenon. These incidents represent a deliberate attack on the principle of humanity, which humanitarian work is founded upon. It also symbolises an attack against the international community, which is often responsible for or heavily involved in the delivery of humanitarian assistance. Despite well-established international humanitarian law and the more recent Security Council Resolution 1502 outlawing deliberate attacks on humanitarian workers as a war crime, these incidents continue to occur (UN SC 2003 in Fast 2010). Many now even declare these types of attacks as ‘common in wartime’ (Narang and Stanton 2016, 1). A worrying result of this is the effect these incidents have on the ability of humanitarian organisations to provide assistance to populations located within violent contexts, who are often in the greatest need of support. Attempts to address this problem from the humanitarian community have been at odds with those from the peacekeeping field. Concerns for the safety