+0
In this passage I have highlighted the sentence, which seem to me very confusing. Can anybody help me to understand it? Thank you in advance!!!

The requirements for impartiality, independence and neutrality for humanitarian actors are paramount amongst their concerns. This is not least because their own security could be put at risk if they are seen as favouring civilians in need that are associated with one group rather than another, or are located in one region rather than somewhere else, or if they are closely associated with the work of peacekeeping troops and become a target in themselves. Thus humanitarian and relief agencies jealously protect their neutral stance in conflict settings, whilst military operations are deployed in support of particular political aims. This means that if they are enjoying the confidence of all, and the associated security this is meant to result in, then association with military actors is deeply problematic.
+0
I think the 'all' covers only the civilians in need and others but not the military forces also in action (the actors) in the area.

They need to prove they are neutral to gain the trust of local people. Connections with the military can make that difficult.
Comments  
I am wondering if the passage has been written in the context of the war in Sri Lanka.

This means that if they are enjoying the confidence of all, and the associated security this is meant to result in, then association with military actors is deeply problematic.

I am not sure if I have got the point, but I think the sentence is a bit ambiguous. Why
association with the military will be problematic if the humanitarian actors enjoy both the confidence of the either party to the confllict and the security emanating from such enjoyment of confidence? (Assuming that the military is also included with "all").
 nona the brit's reply was promoted to an answer.