Article: Peacebuilding: Do We Know How?

December 22, 2005

Author: Gordon Smith

Weak states, failing states, failed states, post-conflict reconstruction of states – have you
noticed how much more frequently such fundamental problems of governance in other
parts of the world are cited? There has always been a problem with governments that
were unable to deal with humanitarian or environmental crises. Haiti is a recurring
example. There is nothing new about governments that cannot protect their citizens’
human security. The breakdown in Somalia goes on. It is not clear that we are having
more of these cases, but there is an increasing sense in public opinion that something has
to be done.


Then there are the crises that are actually caused by governments’ actions or deliberate
inaction (e.g. Darfur). A distinguished commission, with Canadian sponsorship, produced
a report entitled The Responsibility to Protect. Their argument rather neatly turned
around the question of the “right to intervene” into a responsibility of governments to
protect their citizens. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has commended the
report and urged that further work be done on the outstanding questions the Commission
was unable to resolve – above all on the international authority required for intervention
when states are unwilling or unable to protect their citizens.


What has changed in the last few years are other reasons why those of us living in
comfort and security in countries such as Canada must take an interest in these cases of
impending or actual state breakdown. In the past, many Canadians were moved by
images and stories of despair to argue we should do something to help. This has
commendably motivated a large number of NGOs to act and led to CIDA providing
substantial resources for relief. Now, however, these states are seen as fertile ground for
terrorists to train, recruit or just hide. The prospect, indeed likelihood, that terrorists will
lay their hands on or fabricate nuclear, but also biological, weapons, and then use them,
makes these states a source of real threat.


While the threat is perceived as being primarily directed at the United States, it is
significantly broader. The threat is not only to the developed West but also to developing
countries (e.g. Indonesia).


Commentators on the US National Security Strategy President Bush produced in 2002
focused on the case for pre-emptive and preventive war, and the authority the US
declared it had to launch either without any form of international consent. Actually this
doctrine is nothing new, although it was stated in a particularly unequivocal manner.
Much more surprising was the statement that the biggest threat to our southern neighbour
came not from other states seeking to challenge the US military, but from terrorists
operating from failed states.


It makes sense that more should be done, including by Canada, to improve governance
including building democracy around the world. The United Nations Development
Program has been reoriented to give governance a much higher priority. It is widely
accepted that without good governance, there will be no development. The Nobel prize
winning Amartya Sen makes a direct link between democracy and development. Farid
Zakaria argues that rules based liberal systems are essential for democracy and
development. It seems that Prime Minister Martin would like to emphasize these themes
with a transformation of Canadian development assistance.


But what should actually be done? Is there one model or a number of models? Or is every
case different? What can we learn from experience? What is most important in reversing
the process of failure, and where does one start after a state has already failed? Wanting
to do good, to make a difference, is laudable but will not assuredly lead to the desired
results. There is only just starting to be a literature of research to build on. Frank
Fukuyama has just published a very sobering analysis of how difficult peacebuilding is;
he emphasizes institutions cannot be exported and that political culture is critical. Jim
Dobbins of RAND has edited an excellent book on the US experience from Germany and
Japan in the post WWII era to the current day. More needs to be done. First, it would be
constructive to pull together the Canadian experience.


Second, we do know some things. Security is a sine qua non. Without security there will
not be democracy or development. There are a number of dimensions to security,
including military and police. The demand for police training is huge; the numbers of
policemen willing to serve abroad is high. Yet most international missions have difficulty
achieving their numerical goals because of a lack of money. A major part of the reason
for the lack of money is that it is difficult to count police training and assistance as
development assistance under OECD rules. This needs to be changed.


Third, police are only one part of the criminal justice system, the effective functioning of
which is of critical importance. This means an early priority must go in to judicial
training and corrections training. Here too there are problems with the rules about what
can be counted as development. Everybody, of course, wants to be able to maximize what
they report they are doing for development.


Fourth, there are also important lessons to be learned as to when elections should be
called. It is clear elections can be too early, and they can be too late. Criteria can be
developed to guide this decision. It seems clear that it is generally better to call local
elections – which can be fought on issues –before general elections – which can underline
splits on ethnic or other divisive grounds. The point is, we need more research, more
drawing on past experience.


Finally there is the issue of values. We are quick to condemn American exceptionalism,
with its belief that God has given the US a unique role in the world to spread democracy,
freedom and the benefits of the market economy. But we sometimes fall into a similar
trap by saying the world needs more Canadas, that we should project our distinct values
abroad. There are, of course, universal rights (as agreed in the UN context) and most
would argue values which flow from them. Ensuring these are upheld is one thing.
Persuading others that we have unique virtues they should adopt is quite another.