The eagerness on the part of the international community to intervene in states classified as having failed, is not a new one. As Rondinelli and Montgomery observe:
History is replete with attempts by foreign governments either forcibly or through diplomatic pressure to impose governance institutions on other states. For centuries, European powers displaced indigenous governments in Africa, Asia and Latin America in the quest to build colonial empires. (2005: 15)
The present approach to state-building can be traced back to the post World War II occupations of Japan and Germany and the provision of US aid through the Marshall plan to assist in the reconstruction of Europe. Further historical traces are evident in the United States led military interventions in Southeast Asia, Latin America and Africa to remove ‘hostile’ regimes and rebuild conflict-ravaged countries as ‘democratic market’ economies. However, striking discontinuities also exist with these previous state-building efforts, the majority of which can be attributed to the end of the Cold War and the attendant change in the ‘character of conflicts’.
So, why do certain states become involved in trying to assist ‘Failed States’ identify and implement solutions to their internal conflicts and/or political instability?
Explanations tend to fall broadly into two camps. The first of these might be referred to as that of the liberal internationalists or liberal cosmopolitans who emphasise the moral imperatives of providing assistance to protect the rights of those living under dictatorial or harsh authoritarian regimes. The second would be the realist camp, which contends that ‘Failed States’ are a source of insecurity to the whole global community including, most importantly, the North (northern hemisphere).
Of course, in reality, those advocating for direct intervention or the provision of humanitarian assistance to countries suffering from domestic conflict often draw upon the arguments of both the liberal internationalist and realist camps. The 2003 invasion of Iraq demonstrates such a rhetorical approach whereby both security and humanitarian concerns were raised at different stages to justify the US-led invasion.
In either case, countries that are subject to ‘intervention’ are regarded as displaying certain specific traits indicative of their failed status classification
…their state apparatuses are unable to exercise full control over their respective territories, are unable to fulfill domestic and international development and legal obligations, lack effective national judicial systems to ensure the ‘rule of law,’ do not demonstrate the requisites of liberal democracy, and are unable to prevent their territories from being used in the perpetration of economic and other crimes. (Guttal 2005a: 40)
There is one other category of state that is generally considered as requiring state-building support. These are states emerging from a period of domestic conflict.
According to the World Bank, in 2006 some 20 million people worldwide lost their lives through civil wars with another 67 million being displaced. In the preceding decade and a half, 16 of the 20 poorest countries globally had suffered from a major armed conflict.
However, despite an annual increase in the outbreak of new conflicts since the end of the Cold War, the total number of ongoing armed struggles declined for the first time since WWII, as the number of resolved conflicts exceeded new conflicts. This positive development meant that the period between 1992 – the high point for internal conflicts in the post-World War II era – and 2003 saw a reduction of 40% in the number of state-based conflicts worldwide.
However, by and large state-building operations have failed to live up to expectations. According to Paris and Sisk, the operations of the international agencies in Liberia and Timor Leste “prematurely reduced their efforts to secure peace in the wake of conflict”. Bosnia and Kosovo saw local frustration mount with the international community as “international state-building efforts have lingered on in seeming perpetuity, while reconciliation and institutional reform efforts have stalled”. In the case of post-invasion Afghanistan and Iraq, critical and exceptional difficulties have been encountered in the attempts to construct “effective and legitimate governmental structures”. (Paris & Sisk 2007: 1)
Serious questions have also been raised as to the sustainability of the international community’s institutional reform efforts in what were previously regarded as the most successful state-building operations in Cambodia, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Other commentators would argue though that despite the far from perfect record in terms of international community involvement in assisting ‘Failed States’, the absence of such assistance would significantly raise the risk of violence re-erupting. This would increase the humanitarian risks not only for the domestic population in the concerned states but also provoke potential security risks for the international community.
Given the immense challenges inherent in assisting ‘Failed States’ the international community is now cooperating to an ever greater extent to deliver the required support. In this respect, the partnership which has developed between the EU and the UN over the past decade or so, has assumed an ever greater importance. Contributing almost two fifths of the UN’s budget, the EU has emphasised its strong commitment to a policy of international multilateralism. Regarding the UN as a critical component of its’ external policy efforts, the EU has tried to use the UN as a principal global forum to promote the construction of an international framework founded on `universal rules and values´. The EU believes that such a structure would facilitate a rapid response on the part of the international community to any global challenge, threat or crisis that might emerge.
This policy of international cooperation can be seen in the high level of coordination between the EU and the UN in state-building. In Chad, the EU, through its member states, provided a bridging operation until the UN was in a position to establish its own regional mission there. The UN for its part has also supported the EU, as in Kosovo when its Interim Administration set the stage for the formation of the European Union Role of Law Mission.
Given the considerable resources needed to assist ‘Failed States’ in their reconstruction, critics have raised the question as to why the EU or other bodies are willing to commit to providing state-building assistance? Writers such as Guttal emphasise the manner in which the EU and other wealth international states gain from such investment in state-building efforts. He contends that through their engagement in the rebuilding of institutions and socio-political systems, donor states are frequently able to obtain substantial leverage over the future direction of the ‘Failed State’ in question. In many instances, the failed state is coerced into adopting “a market-based capitalist economic system, twinned with a political regime that is willing to promote and defend free market capitalism.” (Guttal 2005b: 73)
In effect, the ‘Failed State’ is prevented from devising and developing its own socio-economic and political solutions. Instead, it is obliged to adopt a particular political system and enter the international economy on terms not of its own choosing.
Irrespective of the underlying motives of bodies such as the EU in providing assistance to ‘Failed States’, it is clear that the rise in the negotiated resolution of conflicts has paved the way for an even greater involvement in state-building efforts on the part of the international community. It is imperative that this process is closely monitored. Such interventions by the global community, particularly the North (Northern Hemisphere), in `Failed States´ should facilitate and enable these countries to freely determine their own future political and economic trajectory rather than forcing them to become effectively dependent `clients´ of the wealthier nations.
Bibliography
Guttal, S. (2005a) ‘Reconstruction: A Glimpse into an Emerging Paradigm’, Silent War
The US’ Ideological and Economic Occupation of Iraq, (Focus on the Global South Publication), http://www.focusweb.org/pdf/Iraq_Dossier.pdf
Guttal, S. (2005b) ‘The Politics of Post-war/post-Conflict Reconstruction’, Development, 48(3)
Paris. R. & Sisk, T. D. (2007) Managing Contradictions: The Inherent Dilemmas of Postwar Statebuilding, http://www.ipacademy.org/asset/file/211/iparpps.pdf, accessed 16 March 2008
Rondinelli, D.A. & Montgomery, J.D. (2005) Regime Change and Nation Building: Can Donors Restore Governance in Post-Conflict States? Public Administration Development 25
Related news articles:
1 Comment