<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why militarizing aid in Afghanistan is a bad idea</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1848" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=1848</link>
	<description>duncan green poverty to power oxfam development</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 05:21:47 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=1848&#038;cpage=1#comment-11055</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:36:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=1848#comment-11055</guid>
		<description>The paper makes some very valid points, but the fact of the matter is there are going to be more troops and more resources in Afghanistan over the next 12 months, and the real question is how we respond to this reality – and whether a modus operandi can be found that limits the potential danger of militarization of aid, and finds ways of working constructively together. 
Currently, the pressure for a more integrated civil military approach is perceived by the development community as a threat to neutral space that exists for development activities and any direct collaboration is anathma to some humanitarian agencies. 
The reality is that they security forces and development efforts can  both contribute to improving the stability of the country (and both the military and aid can be destabilising). Perhaps it is a question of good fences making good neighbours and we need to be very clear as to where we draw the boundary in civil military relations. A dialogue is needed rather than a turf fight.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The paper makes some very valid points, but the fact of the matter is there are going to be more troops and more resources in Afghanistan over the next 12 months, and the real question is how we respond to this reality – and whether a modus operandi can be found that limits the potential danger of militarization of aid, and finds ways of working constructively together.<br />
Currently, the pressure for a more integrated civil military approach is perceived by the development community as a threat to neutral space that exists for development activities and any direct collaboration is anathma to some humanitarian agencies.<br />
The reality is that they security forces and development efforts can  both contribute to improving the stability of the country (and both the military and aid can be destabilising). Perhaps it is a question of good fences making good neighbours and we need to be very clear as to where we draw the boundary in civil military relations. A dialogue is needed rather than a turf fight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
