- Introduction
International state-building refers to a process or activity in which external actors attempt to build or re-build the institutions of a post-conflict, failing or weaker state.[1] It is the activity of a country on another country, usually through certain interventions such as UN peacekeeping operation. An example of international state-building is the state-building of South Sudan whereby EU and USA have allocated millions of Euros and Dollars in support of state-building project of South Sudan. South Sudan was a weak state following its independence on July 9, 2011after it broke away from Sudan. Some researchers and scholars suggest that international state building leads to the emergence of specialized personnel, loyalty, permanent institutions, control over consolidated territory and emergence of a centralized and autonomous state. Other studies indicate that state-building may lead to destruction of existing informal institutions through increased ethnic violence. Increased international support for state-building may result in unintended negative effects of increasing the likelihood of ethnic violence occurring. Georgia is one of the states which have suffered from the negative effects of international State-building. State-building efforts that took place in Georgia since Rose Revolution of 2003 which included anti-corruption campaigns, strengthening government institutions and severing of surveillance networks have led to the collapse of elites’ collaborations which were intended to maintain the state’s fragile peace; hence disenfranchising them and causing re-birth of ethnic violence.
This paper will provide the arguments for and against international state-building efforts. In order to supplement the arguments for state-building, the paper will use the case of state-building in South Sudan which has improved South Sudan’s institutions, peace and security. The paper will also use state-building efforts of Georgia as an example to support the arguments against international state-building.
- Arguments for International Statebuilding
The pro positions of statebuilding rely on the suggestion that international statebuilding enhances the construction of a functioning state.[2] Initially, the target state is considered to be economically, institutionally and democratically weak, insecure, and failing. International statebuilding in such a state improves the economy, institutional strength and peace and security of the state. There are generally three pillars of arguments for state-building: economic progress, democratic institution building, and security sector reform and protection against renewed violence or insurgence. The next section will outline the policy dimension of these pillars in order to highlight the arguments for international statebuilding efforts.
- Economic Progress
Post-conflict societies often face structural problems which result in economic instabilities. Such societies experience general lawlessness; undeveloped fiscal system; corrupt and vulnerable civil service; property destructions; bankruptcy or fiscal stress; presence of refugee camps; high inflation and a delimitation of economic activities.[3] These problems often reinforce each other and cause a viscous circle of poverty. International statebuilding helps the affected state by developing certain policies which will enhance a sustainable economic development in the post-conflict state.
The first policy implementation that is occasioned by international statebuilding in regards to economic progress is helping displaced persons to return to their homes or find a new dwelling place for them. This enables the displaced persons to participate in the nation building. People confined in refugee camps participate less in the economic development of their country. Furthermore, supporting refugees is economically strenuous to a given country. Refugees who stay in camps may also act as a breeding ground for several types of extremisms. Settling refugees can be undertaken by international organizations in collaboration with the existing leadership of the affected society. For instance, The UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) which supports and oversees statebuilding in South Sudan spends a lot of money to stabilize the nation which is emerging from several years of civil war caused by internal conflicts and underdevelopment.[4] European Union and USA also funds the statebuilding of South Sudan. Some of the funds contributed by such organizations and other donors are used to resettle refugees. UNMISS also provides military support to enhance security during the settlement of refugees, especially in conflict-ridden regions such as Sahel, the Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa. Settling of refugees has enabled the new Republic of South Sudan to re-allocate funds which could have been used to settle refugees and to protect them to other sectors of the economy such as development of infrastructure.
International nation building can also enhance economic progress through the stabilization of the affected country’s currency. This is a bit difficult for international organizations or countries because the strength of a country’s currency depends on various local circumstances and the international framework. However, donors may build up currency reserves to stabilize the local currency and provide security to fundamental economic sectors in the state.[5] International donors, foreign countries and international organizations may also collaborate with the government of the affected country to establish a central banking sector and national payment system. They can also enhance security during the process.
Statebuilding efforts also ensure that a solid commercial financial system is established in the post-conflict country to enable economic progress. Proponents of international statebuilding suggest that economically stable countries such as US and EU as well as international financial organizations such as IMF can help a country to build and support independent commercial banks which will then enhance financial stability in the country; hence enhancing economic progress.[6] This is the case in the on-going state-building of South Sudan led by the UN. Security is also necessary during the process. UN provides army personnel to oversee various activities of building commercial banks and the central bank of the country.
Proponents of international statebuilding also suggest that international organizations and foreign countries may fund government projects in order to attain sustainable economic progress. This is done by foreign institutions before the home country establishes its own viable tax and tariff systems. Continued donor support in form of finance and security can also help weak and failed states to build their economy and enhance economic progress in the long-run. Such support does not end within the first one or two years; but it is a continuous process which ensures that the state has completely healed from its problems and conflicts. For instance, the challenges facing South Sudan are so enormous that the fundamental economic pillars need to be built for several years before it stands alone on its own feet. International institutions, foreign countries and donors still need to participate in the statebuilding of the country for a long period before it is well established. Economic progress of the country has been slowed down by structural obstacles which were occasioned by international conflicts in the past including lack of basic infrastructure and insecurity problems.[7]
Good infrastructure can also be established through international statebuilding; hence creating a good environment for sustainable economic progress. Investment in infrastructure is an expensive venture, especially for weak states. Foreign countries can participate in infrastructural investment efforts of such countries by providing military personnel and funding to support the process.[8] Strong infrastructure (schools, roads, utilities, hospitals, telephone, sewage, airports, water supply and universities) is important for the economy because without it economic recovery will be difficult.
Finally, an effective civil service can be used to enhance economic progress. The civil service of a given country assumes the ownership of the country’s resources. a strong civil service is therefore necessary for effective allocation of resources in any economy. In the case of a failed state, civil service can be strengthened through engagement with foreign agencies, relief organizations and international organisations such as UN and EU. Foreign countries can offer advice, finance and other forms of support to the weak state in order to create or re-establish ministries and agencies that can enhance accountability and efficiency in resource allocation. This results in reliable economic progress of the country or state.
- Democratic institution building
International agencies and foreign countries play a fundamental role in state-building of a weak state. State building involves the reform of the public sector through creation of ministries, cabinet of the government, government agencies and presidency system. Democracy involves development of a government in which rulers are elected and whose mandate are guided by responsiveness, need for compromise and transparency. These systems can be enhanced effectively through collaborations between the weak state and well-established foreign countries.[9] This necessitates the use of international statebuilding to enhance democracy and building of new state institutions.
Foreign countries may use their strong military bases to lessen the effects of conflicts within a given state; hence increasing a country’s ability to build its institutions without interference. Such nations may also provide military assistance to protect the presidential system and enhance a stronger democratic nation.[10] This can be seen in the intervention of Libya by NATO and US when the country’s then President Muhammar Gaddafi practiced an authoritarian leadership. In this case, statebuilding through intervention from foreign countries enables a weak country to deal with problems associated with oppressive political systems.
- Security Sector Reform
Before a weak nation is able to provide high-level security for its citizens, it needs to learn from well-established nations. Such foreign countries help in the initial security and peace maintenance while at the same time assisting in the reform of the country’s security sector including various armed actors such as police, military, paramilitary and private militia. Institutional solutions to the military sector can ideally be achieved through international foreign intervention – international statebuilding. Security sector reforms involve security service reforms and enhancing political control, strengthening civilian and democratic oversight.[11] International statebuilding in terms of security reforms involves disarmament, demobilization and re-integration of former combatants into the society. Foreign countries and international organizations with stronger military base can also help a weaker country to overcome remnants of war within its territories. They further enable the affected country to redress its crimes and atrocities of the past and promote rehabilitation in order to foster security and peace.
Another important aspect of statebuilding in regard to security reform is that external involvement in security sector focuses on assistance. International community intervenes in the security sector of a weak nation in order to provide financial aid, training facilities and technical advice. The international community including foreign nations also stimulates and facilitates policy dialogues and norm setting. International actors including donors, international organization and foreign countries coordinate each others’ activities and design transition strategies in order to ensure that the security sector of the weak nation is strong and well established before they find an exit out of the country. Statebuilding also enhances better governance dimension of security reforms through establishment of normative frameworks and consultative political processes.[12] Foreign countries also provide institutional management and oversight mechanisms to reform the security sector of the weak country.
- Statebuilding Strategies
In the past, structural adjustments through the market were believed to solve the problems of weak states. Such a state fragility has now taken a new dimension over the past few decades. Donors, peace-building, and security communities nowadays use state-building as a strategy to respond to the problem of state fragility and failure.[13] Focus on security and development environment is considered by statebuilding proponents as a strategic measure to overcome a nation’s lack of capacity to perform core state functions in terms of security, welfare and representation (Edwards, 2010). Statebuilding enables a weak nation to identify areas of weakness and set priorities in order to enhance sustainability in key sectors. The main sectors include security, economic and political sectors.
A consensus that identifies different stages of state fragility and failure can be established through effective statebuilding. State failure is a continuous process that requires long term solution (Boege et al., 2008). This cannot be achieved through interventions by the affected country. Strong foreign countries, international organisations and donors should intervene through statebuilding. Statebuilding strategies include strengthening and providing sustainability in state institutions.[14] It also enables state actors to control, regulate, and implement internal security policies effectively for the purpose of solving the problems of a weak and fragile state. Social services, rule of law and legitimacy of government are also solved effectively through statebuilding.
Weak and failing states also act as breeding grounds for terrorists and war perpetuators. Such nations are therefore threats to international security. As a result, statebuilding enables foreign countries to fight threats to international security and enhance peaceful international relationships among nations. State-building also builds the capacity of security agencies in fragile states in order to enable them participate in reduction or elimination of threats of security.[15] The use of a foreign country or international organization to the reform police service, border protection, customs and military personnel of a failing country is one of the priorities of external existence. Statebuilding enables a country’s security agencies to address development issues. Foreign countries or external actors use the concept of statebuilding to securitize different issues in a weak and fragile nation; hence adding to the legitimacy of different security agencies of the country such as the military. This can be done by expanding the areas of activity of the military.
- Arguments against international statebuilding
- Recurrence of ethnic violence
Opponents of statebuilding suggest that international statebuilding is tantamount to interfering with the sovereignty of nations and sparkling of more violence and resistance from certain groups with special interest in the weakening or collapsed state. Khaldi (2011) suggests that in a collapsed state that had previously experienced ethnic violence and in which there are informal institutions, probability of re-occurrence of ethnic violence through destruction of informal institutions that caused the ethnic violence is high. International support of such statebuilding efforts may unintentionally cause a negative effect of increased chances of ethnic violence occurring again.
This situation has been illustrated by Khaldi (2011) using an example of ethnic violence of Georgia since 1990s. Since 1990s, Georgia was under war occasioned by Abkhaz rebels who sought secession. The rebels fought against Georgia troops since 1992. Russia came in as a mediator in 1993 as the UN also intervened. Intensive negotiation between Georgia and Abkhaz took place during that year, leading Georgia to sign deals with Russia providing for Russia to assist Georgia in the development of its army, deployment of Russian border guards and for Russia to maintain its military bases in Georgia.[16] Abkhaz did not realize this treaty. Georgia also called for assistance from Commonwealth of Independent States to send peacekeeping troops to deal with the fragile ceasefire in Abkhazia (Khaldi, 2011). As a result of the Sochi agreement of 1992 and Moscow agreement of 1994, ethnic conflicts in Georgia were frozen. However, there were no peace agreements arrived at between Georgia and the two breakaway regions including Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
- Corruption, Smuggling and Extortion
Weak or failing states often have a treasure or economic benefit to the foreign states which engage in state-building as well as the state that is being built.[17] This often leads to issues of corruption, extortion or smuggling. As a result, the state may weaken even further and become vulnerable to new violence. This is evident from the case of Georgia. Informal trade emanating from the wartime of early 1990s led to networks of profits. Scholars whose stand is against state-building argue that network of profits often harden into weaken the state due to economics of deliberate violence. For instance, the network of profits in Georgia caused negative impacts to the post-war state-building process of the country. The end-result of the statebuilding process was a simultaneous de-legitimization and weakening of institutions and the central government.
Corruption, smuggling and extortion by any player of the state-building process result in fierce resistance that sparks new violence. This does not benefit the weak country but causes more problems. Instead of solving problems of the state, state-building causes more problems. This is the position of those who oppose statebuilding. They contend that smugglers do not settle well with peacekeeping forces that are deployed to their areas of operations. As a result, they become defiant and cause more violence. Corruption by the foreign players or the institutions of the weak state may also cause resistance from certain defiant groups in the state. This illustration is used to demonstrate arguments against state-building. State-building can be viewed by various groups in the fragile state as an oppressive and extortive action of foreigners to take away what is rightfully a possession of the people who dwell in the state (citizens).
- Conclusion
From this critical analysis and discussion, it is clear that international state-building in two perspectives; as a pro and as a con. From the view of the weak or fragile state, international statebuilding may cause recurrence of violence or may lead to further weakening of already existing informal institutions. Smuggling, extortions and corruption may cause increased fragility in the weak state. They also lead to resistance from various groups; hence causing more violence in a state that is already weak. However, those who support international state-building argue that it is one of the most successful ways of re-building a failed nation.
Recurrence of violence and further weakening of institutions within the fragile nation can be avoided. Foreign nations, donors and international organizations can do this by not interfering with the sovereignty of the weak nation. They should only provide assistance and advice on various aspects of nation building. They should ensure that the weak nation progresses well economically by providing funds to re-build the nation and supporting various projects in infrastructure and institutionalization.
Participants of international statebuilding should also provide security personnel to restore security without interfering with the sovereignty and liberty of the fragile nation. They should prioritize security reforms so that the functioning of the state can be enhanced peacefully and in an environment with good security. Furthermore, a successful international statebuilding also involves re-building of democratic institutions within the failed state. This should not be done by forcefully exerting pressure on the existing fragile institutions.
Instead, the foreign actors should only oversee the process of democratization and institutionalization and offer the necessary support and advice. If these procedures are followed in international statebuilding, the fragile nation will become economically stable, institutionally strong, peaceful and secure. Proponents of international statebuilding argue that these aspects will enhance a strong international relationship between the weak state and other foreign countries.
References
[1] Whaites, A. (2008). States in Development: Understanding Statebuilding. London: DFID Working Paper.
[2] Lake, D. (2010). The Practice and Theory of US Statebuilding. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 4 (3), 257-284.
[3] OECDe (2008). Statebuilding in Situations of Fragility: Initial Findings. OECD, Paris.
[4] OECDa (2009). Integrity in Statebuilding: Anti-Corruption with a Statebuilding Lens. OECD DAC Network on Governance – Anti-Corruption Task Team.
[5] Stewart, S. (2009). The interplay of domestic contexts and external democracy promotion: lessons from Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus. Democratization, 16 (4), 804-824.
[6] Lacher, W. (2012). South Sudan: International State-building and its limits. SWP Research Paper 4, Berlin.
[7] Lacher, W. (2012). South Sudan: International State-building and its limits. SWP Research Paper 4, Berlin.
[8] Boege, V. Brown, A. Clements, K. and Nolan, A. (2008). On Hybrid Political Orders and Emerging States: State Formation in the Context of ‘Fragility’. Bergh of Research Centre for Constructive Conflict Management, Berlin.
[9] Moses J. & Knutsen T. (2007). Ways of Knowing: Competing methodologies in Social and Political science research. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
[10] Smith, D. (2007). What is Corruption in Conflict Zones? The Nexus: Corruption, Conflict & Peace-building Colloquium. Boston: Fletcher School, Tufts University.
[11] Richmond, O. (2009).The Romanticisation of the Local: Welfare, Culture and Peace-building. The International Spectator, 44(1), 149-169.
[12] Edwards, L.M. (2010). Statebuilding in Afghanistan: a case showing the limits? International Review of the Red Cross, 92 (880), 967-991.
[13] OECDe (2008). Statebuilding in Situations of Fragility: Initial Findings. OECD, Paris.
[14] ODI (2009). Statebuilding for peace: navigating an arena of contradictions. ODI Briefing paper, 52, London.
[15] OECDa (2009). Integrity in Statebuilding: Anti-Corruption with a Statebuilding Lens. OECD DAC Network on Governance – Anti-Corruption Task Team.
[16] Khaldi, M.A. (2011). The Dilemma of Statebuilding in Areas of Ethnic Violence: How International Efforts to Bolster Georgia’s Statebuilding May Have Contributed to the Resurgence of Ethnic Violence Since 2003. McGill International Review, 1(1), 9-17.
[17] ODI (2009). Statebuilding for peace: navigating an arena of contradictions. ODI Briefing paper, 52, London.
