This term may be defined as the use of armed force and international control mechanisms in the aftermath of a conflict to promote a durable peace and to restore the sovereignty of failed states(40). The general term describing this activity is nation building.
Different terms can be distinguished to describe the same activity: the United Nations use the term peace building, the United States calls it stabilization or reconstruction and what European governments prefer to call state building(41). The different used mechanisms are diplomatic, economic, informational and military resources.
Strangely enough or not, state building is often compared with colonialism(42). However it is useful to make the comparison and understand the difference between state building, colonialism and neo-colonialism. This can be explained by duration.
Indeed Pre-World War II colonialism and Cold War neo-colonialism were unbounded in time(43). On the other hand, post Cold War state building deals with departure deadlines. Governments involved in state building operations try to find exit strategies because they do not want to stay for a long time and they sometimes leave before they should; Nation builders are often criticized for leaving too early the territory they occupy.
Further in comparison to colonialism, nation building does not deal with economic exploitation or geopolitical advantages(44). All missions need an UNSC mandate and are generally led in poor countries.
However, the process of state building deals necessarily with another important one that is rebuilding governance. Governance may be defined as the ability of a government, and through its institutions, to provide at central and local level the political, social and economic policy making with authority and legitimacy. It needs to provide an effective and efficient public management process which enables the participation of citizens(45). Rebuilding governance becomes therefore the main objective in the rebuilding process of failed states. The implementation of governance reforms deals with three major factors that are the reconstitution of legitimacy, the re-establishment of security and the rebuilding of effectiveness.
– Legitimacy refers to acceptance of a government as right, correct and appropriate(46). A state can function only if it has a minimum of legitimacy and without legitimacy accepted by the population, the state can take the line of failure. The reconstitution of legitimacy means a participation of citizens in the political life, the reduction of inequalities among the population, the struggle to diminish corruption and the introduction of elections. The supply of political goods, related to the notion of effectiveness, represents a major factor in the rebuilding governance process because it shows the capacity of the state to respond to the population’s needs(47). Moreover, it includes the prevailing of the rule of law. As for the system of governance, the democratic system seems to provide the strongest delivery of legitimacy(48).
– One of the main priorities in the aftermath of a conflict is the re-establishment of security. For dealing with the lack of security, it involves three measures that are the disarmament, the demobilization and the reintegration of involved armed forces(49). This three measures are linked with the rebuilding of effectiveness because the reintegration is possible only is the restart of the economy is ensured(50). Without it, reintegration will be difficult and it could lead to the emergence of another conflict. Security is maybe the most important factor in order to stabilize a country and it often deals with humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. However, it requires working with the police and military forces as well local as international, and this will ensure a better capacity to build governance.
– Failed states are not able anymore to provide the basic public goods that are education, health and public infrastructures. This may lead to a humanitarian crisis which may have many impacts on the socio-economic situation and the restart of the economy. The effectiveness of the state has therefore to be rebuilt. The first step is to build good governance which means the supply of the political goods that are necessary in a well-structured society: education, public transports and infrastructures, medical and health care and development of civil society. Effectiveness also means macroeconomic and fiscal policymaking, an equal distribution of wealth resources and a good budget management(51). Effectiveness is directly linked to legitimacy in that without the delivery of the basic public goods, the population can lose confidence in the government which can lose legitimacy(52). It can then lead to the re-emergence of a conflict, especially in a country with many ethnic groups.
As said above, rebuilding security represents the main objective in the rebuilding process. Without a sustainable security, the other factors cannot develop at risk to see the re-emergence of a conflict. The following table offers the main tasks in state building.
Table 2.1 State Building key tasks
Source: Fund for Peace, Failed States Index, Foreign Policy Magazine.
41 Caplan Richard et Pouligny Beatrice, Histoire et contradictions du state building, critique international, 2005/3 no 28, P.123-138.
42 James Dobbins, Europe’s role in nation-building: From the Balkans to the Congo, Rand, 2008
43 James Dobbins, Europe’s role in nation-building: From the Balkans to the Congo, Rand, 2008.
44 The US-led intervention in Iraq might be viewed as an exception.
45 Derick W. Brinkerhoff, Rebuilding governance in failed states and post-conflict societies: core concepts and cross-cutting themes, Vol 25, Public Administration and Development, pp. 3-14, 2005.
46 Derick W. Brinkerhoff, Rebuilding governance in failed states and post-conflict societies: core concepts and cross-cutting themes, Vol 25, Public Administration and Development, pp. 3-14, 2005.
47 David Carment, Assessing State Failure: implications for theory and policy, Third World Quarterly, Vol 24, N°3, pp 407-427, 2003.
48 David Carment, Assessing State Failure: implications for theory and policy, Third World Quarterly, Vol 24, N°3, pp 407-427, 2003.
49 Derick W. Brinkerhoff, Rebuilding governance in failed states and post-conflict societies: core concepts and cross-cutting themes, Vol 25, Public Administration and Development, pp. 3-14, 2005.
50 David Carment, Assessing State Failure: implications for theory and policy, Third World Quarterly, Vol 24, N°3, pp 407-427, 2003.
51 World Bank, Reforming Public Institutions and Strengthening Governance: A World Bank Strategy, World Bank, Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network: Washington, DC, 2000.
52 David Carment, Assessing State Failure: implications for theory and policy, Third World Quarterly, Vol 24, N°3, pp 407-427, 2003.