16 Foreign Policy T H I N K A G A I N Not necessarily. Nation building is diffi- cult, but it need not become a quagmire as long as the effort has clear goals and sufficient resources. Compare Somalia and East Timor: The United States and the United Nations stumbled into Somalia without a plan. As a result, what began as a humanitarian mission to feed people starved by rival warlords became a misguided attempt at ad hoc nation building as U.S. troops sought to capture Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid. The United States extricated itself from that quagmire by leav- ing Somalia to its fate in 1994, and the United Nations later did the same. In East Timor, by contrast, the international community followed a plan and was not dragged into a situation it could not control. Right from the start, the United Nations sought consensus for nation building by organizing an unprecedented plebiscite on independence from Indonesia. Learn- ing from the mistakes of the Balkans and elsewhere, peacekeepers (led by Australia) were authorized to use deadly force against pro-Indonesia militias who sought to disrupt East Timor's bid for autonomy through a campaign of violence, looting, and arson. At the time of this writing, the East Timorese have democratically elected a new government, which has hired more than 11,000 civil servants and retrained former guerillas as soldiers for the coun- try's nascent defense force. East Timor is still a con- struction site, but it is not a quagmire. By Marina Ottaway NATION BUILDING Once, nations were forged through "blood and iron." Today, the world seeks to build them through conflict resolution, multilat- eral aid, and free elections. But this more civilized approach has not yielded many successes. For nation building to work, some harsh compromises are necessary--including military coercion and the recognition that democracy is not always a realistic goal. "Nation Building Is a Quagmire" Marina Ottaway is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endow- ment for International Peace and codirector of its Democra- cy and Rule of Law Project. "Nation Building Is About Building a Nation" shunned outright assimilation by forming a mosaic of hyphenated Americans. And contrary to the mytholo- gy inherited from 19th-century Europe, historical evi- dence reveals that the common identity, or sense of nationhood, that exists in many countries did not pre- cede the state but was forged by it through the imposi- tion of a common language and culture in schools. The Gauls were not France's ancestors until history text- books decided so. Thus, the goal of nation building should not be to impose common identities on deeply divided peoples but to organize states that can administer their territories and allow people to live together despite differences. And if organizing such a state within the old internationally rec- ognized borders does not seem possible, the international community should admit that nation building may require the disintegration of old states and the formation of new ones. No. Nationhood, or a sense of common identity, by itself does not guarantee the viability of a state. In Haiti, for example, citizens already share a common identity, but the state has collapsed nevertheless. Other states are so deeply divided along ethnic (Bosnia), religious (Northern Ireland), or clan (Somalia) lines that forging a common identity is cur- rently out of the question. The international commu- nity cannot hope to make Muslims, Croats, and Serbs in Bosnia forget their differences, nor can it compel Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland to bridge the religious gulf. Even successful states are less homogeneous than they claim. Many European countries, such as France and Spain, grudgingly have recognized the existence of regional cultures. In the United States, the notion of the melting pot has been debunked, particularly as a new wave of immigrants from the developing world has Absolutely not. Take a look at how the political map of the world has changed in every cen- tury since the collapse of the Roman Empire--that should be proof enough that nation building has been around for quite a while. Casting a glance at the 19th and 20th centuries will reveal that the types of nation building with the most lasting impact on the modern world are nationalism, colonialism, and post­World War II reconstruction. Nationalism gave rise to most European countries that exist today. The theory was that each nation, embodying a shared community of culture and blood, was entitled to its own state. (In reality, though, few beyond the intellectual and political elite shared a com- mon identity.) This brand of nationalism led to the reuni- fication of Italy in 1861 and Germany in 1871 and to the breakup of Austria-Hungary in 1918. This process of nation building was successful where governments were relatively capable, where powerful states decided to make room for new entrants, and where the population of new states was not deeply divided. Germany had a capable government and succeeded so well in forging a common identity that the entire world eventually paid for it. Yugoslavia, by contrast, failed in its efforts, and the international community is still sorting out the mess. Colonial powers formed dozens of new states as they conquered vast swaths of territory, tinkered with old political and leadership structures, and eventually replaced them with new countries and governments. Most of today's collapsed states, such as Somalia or Afghanistan, are a product of colonial nation building. The greater the difference between the precolonial polit- ical entities and what the colonial powers tried to impose, the higher the rate of failure. The transformation of West Germany and Japan into democratic states following World War II is the most suc- cessful nation-building exercise ever undertaken from the outside. Unfortunately, this process took place under cir- cumstances unlikely to be repeated elsewhere. Although defeated and destroyed, these countries had strong state traditions and competent government personnel. West Germany and Japan were nation-states in the literal sense of the term--they were ethnic and cultural com- munities as well as political states. And they were occu- pied by the U.S. military, a situation that precluded choices other than the democratic state. September | October 2002 17 "Nation Building Is a Recent Idea" 18 Foreign Policy Not quite. The most successful nations, includ- ing the United States and the countries of Europe, were built by war. These countries achieved state- hood because they developed the administrative capacity to mobilize resources and to extract the revenue they needed to fight wars. Some countries have been created not by their own efforts but by decisions made by the international community. The Balkans offer unfortunate examples of states cobbled together from pieces of defunct empires. Many African countries exist because colo- nial powers chose to grant them independence. The British Empire created most modern states in the Middle East by carving up the territory of the defeat- ed Ottoman Empire. The Palestinian state, if it becomes a reality, will be another example of a state that owes its existence to an international decision. Such countries have been called quasi states-- entities that exist legally because they are recognized internationally but that hardly function as states in practice because they do not have governments capa- ble of controlling their territory. Some quasi states succeed in retrofitting a functioning country into the legalistic shell. The state of Israel, for example, was formed because of an international decision, and Israel immediately demonstrated its staying power by wag- ing a successful war to defend its existence. But many quasi states fail and then become collapsed states. Today, war is not an acceptable means of state building. Instead, nation building must be a consen- sual, democratic process. But such a process is not effective against adversaries who are not democrat- ic, who have weapons, and who are determined to use them. The world should not be fooled into think- ing that it is possible to build states without coercion. If the international community is unwilling to allow states to be rebuilt by wars, it must provide the mil- itary muscle in the form of a sufficiently strong peacekeeping force. Like it or not, military might is a necessary component of state building. [ Think Again ] "Nation Building Is Not a Task for the 82nd Airborne" Maybe not, but it's certainly a task for a strong military force with U.S. participation. Current White House National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice had a point when she quipped during the 2000 presidential campaign that the 82nd Airborne has more important tasks than "escorting kids to kindergarten." But no one ever said that the primary task of U.S. troops should be babysitting. If the international com- munity does not want to give war a chance by allowing adversaries to fight until someone pre- vails, then it has to establish control through a military presence willing to use deadly force. And if nation building is in the interests of the United States (as the Bush administration has reluctantly concluded), then the United States must participate in imposing that control. It is not enough just to participate in the initial effort (in the war fought from the sky), because what counts is what happens on the ground afterward. Newly formed states need long-term plans that go beyond the recent mission statement outlined by one U.S. diplomat: "We go in, we hunt down terrorists, and we go out as if we'd never been there." Even if the United States succeeds in eliminating the last pockets of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Ameri- cans could face another threat in a few years. And although warring armies are no longer active in Bosnia, the country would splinter apart if international troops went home. The United States does not have to take the cen- tral role in peacekeeping operations, but U.S. partic- ipation is important because the country is the most powerful member of the international community. Otherwise, the United States sends the message that it doesn't care what happens next--and in doing so, it undermines fragile new governments and encourages the emergence of feuding factions and warlords. "Only War Builds Nations" The Thomson Corporation, as the leading provider of need-to-know information, believes that in order to truly have a global economy and a world at peace, universal access to learning is critical. We apply innovative technologies, value-added content and measurable results to enable the expanding possibil- ities of learning. Visit us at www.thomsonlearning.com to learn more about the entire portfolio of Thomson learning solutions. The Knowledge t World Change the "The best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise... "­ Andrew Carnegie 20 Foreign Policy [ Think Again ] "The International Community Knows How to Build Nations but Lacks Political Will" It has neither the will nor the way. Many of the nation-building methods used in the past are inconceivable today, but the inter- national community has yet to find effective substitutes. For instance, the first step colonial powers took when engaging in nation building was "pacification," invariably a bloody under- taking described by the British writer Rudyard Kipling as "the savage wars of peace." In today's gentler world of nation building, such violent means are fortunately unacceptable. Instead, peacemakers usually try to mediate agreements among rival factions, demobilize combatants, and then reintegrate them in civil- ian life--a theoretically good idea that rarely works in practice. Political will for state reconstruction is also in short supply nowadays. That's hardly surprising, given that countries expected to help rebuild nations are the same ones that until recently were accused of neoimperialism. Sierra Leoneans today welcome the British peacekeeping force with open arms and even wax nostalgic about the old days of British rule. But they revolted against British colo- nialism in the 1950s, and not so long ago, they con- demned it as the root cause of all their problems. Should we be surprised that the British are, at best, ambivalent about their role? And even when the international community demonstrates the will to undertake nation building, it's not always able to figure out who should shoul- der the burden. The international community is an unwieldy entity with no single center and lots of contradictions. It comprises the major world pow- ers, with the United States as the dominant agent in some situations and as a reluctant participant in others. In Afghanistan, for instance, the United States wants to have complete control over war operations but refuses to have anything to do with peacekeeping. Meanwhile, the multilateral organ- ization that by its mandate should play the domi- nant role in peacekeeping and state reconstruc- tion--the United Nations--is the weakest and most divided of all. "NGOs Play a Key Role in Nation Building" Yes, but only when a functioning state exists. Large international nongovernmental organiza- tions (ngos), such as Oxfam or care, are vital in distributing humanitarian assistance in collapsed states. They go into high-risk, lawless regions where international agencies and bilateral donors are unwilling to operate. But these organizations can also become part of the problem. In Somalia, for instance, protection money paid by internation- al ngos to gain safe passage for food and medical supplies financed the purchase of weapons by war- lords and contributed to the escalation of violence. To operate effectively, international and nation- al ngos need the stability that only states can provide. These organizations must also coordi- nate their activities with states so as not to under- mine reconstruction efforts. For example, ngos can play an essential role in administering health- care in countries where the government has little outreach, but they can also create havoc if they insist on operating independently of the central government and of each other. That's what hap- pened in Mozambique during the 1980s, when ngos diverted funds from the public sector and fragmented the national health system. In Afghanistan right now there is considerable tension between the central government (which has little capacity to deliver humanitarian relief and serv- ices but feels that it should coordinate the effort) and international ngos (which have greater capacity and experience). For the time being, ngos are the most effective channel for delivering aid, but if government institutions are not allowed to take more long-term responsibility, nation building will fail. Yoichi Morishita, Chairman, Member of the Board, Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. Matsushita Electric in Singapore: Regional HQ. 8 Manufacturing Facilities. R&D. The word is out. Singapore isn't just a great and safe place to do business, it's also a fascinating city to work and live in. From our superb business infrastructure to our great living environment,e to our great living environment, it's hard to find a hub in Asia that makes better business sense. For more information on how you can benefit from the investment opportunities in Singapore, visit www.sedb.com/fp2 or contact the Singapore Economic Development Board at Tel: (65) 6336-2288 Fax: (65) 6339-6077. North American Offices: Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Washington DC. European Offices: Frankfurt, London, Milan, Paris, Stockholm. Asian Offices: Hong Kong, Jakarta, Osaka, Tokyo. Raymond Gilmartin, Chairman, President and CEO, Merck and Co. Inc. Merck in Singapore: Flexible Bulk Pharmaceutical Plant. Tablet Manufacturing Facility. Regional Hub for IT. Sales and Marketing Office. Lee R. Raymond, Chairman and CEO, Exxon Mobil Corporation. ExxonMobil in Singapore: Regional HQ. Refinery. Petrochemical Plant. Applications Research. Greg Summe, Chairman, PerkinElmer, Inc. PerkinElmer in Singapore: Instrument & Optoelectronics. Manufacturing. R&D. Sumner M. Redstone, Chairman and CEO Viacom International Inc. Viacom in Singapore: Broadcasting MTV Asia & Nickelodeon in the Asia region. Asia HQ for Simon & Schuster and United International Pictures. Singapore is pro-business. Here's why business is pro-Singapore. Mr Ned Barnholt, President and CEO, Agilent Technologies, Inc. Agilent Technologies in Singapore: Strategic Operational Site. Advanced Manufacturing Production Activities. Marketing, Customer Service, Finance and Administration hub. http://www.sedb.com 22 Foreign Policy [ Think Again ] "Nation Building Should Be Limited to Strategically Important States" Only if anyone can determine which ones they are. "No sane person opposes nation-building in places that count," writes con- servative columnist Charles Krauthammer. "The debate is about nation-building in places that don't." But this type of reasoning eventually forced the United States to fight a war in Afghanistan, a country deemed so unimportant after the Soviets departed that it was left to become a battleground for warlords and a safe haven for al Qaeda. In 1994, the United States abandoned strategically insignificant Somalia, too, only to start worrying after September 11, 2001, whether that country had also been infil- trated by terrorist networks. For most countries, strategic significance is a variable, not a constant. Certainly, some coun- tries, such as China, are always significant. But even countries that appear of marginal or no importance can suddenly become crucial. Afghanistan is not the only example. In the days of the Cold War, countries or regions suddenly became prominent when they were befriended by the Soviet Union. "salt," then National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski declared in 1980, "was buried in the sands of the Ogaden"--referring to the cooling of U.S.-Soviet relations when the countries were dragged in to support opposite sides in a war between Ethiopia and Somalia. A few years later, the Reagan administration sent people scrambling for small-scale maps of Lebanon by declaring that Souk el-Gharb, an obscure cross- roads town, was vital to U.S. security. The lesson by now should be clear: No country is so insignificant that it can never become important. So, by all means, let us focus our efforts only on strategi- cally important countries, as long as we can predict which ones they are. (Good luck.) "The Goal of Nation Building Is a Democratic State" Let us not indulge in fantasy. It is politically correct to equate state reconstruction with democracy building. Indeed, the internation- al community has a one-size-fits-all model for dem- ocratic reconstruction, so that plans devised for Afghanistan bear a disturbing resemblance to those designed for the Democratic Republic of the Congo (drc). This model usually envisages a negotiated settlement to the conflict and the holding of a national conference of major domestic groups (the loya jirga in Afghanistan and the Inter-Congolese Dialogue in the drc) to reach an agreement on the structure of the political system, followed by elec- tions. In addition to these core activities, the model calls for subsidiary but crucial undertakings, begin- ning with the demobilization of former combatants and the development of a new national army, then extending to reforming the judiciary, restructuring the civil service, and establishing a central bank-- thus creating all the institutions deemed necessary to run a modern state. This model is enormously expensive, requir- ing major commitments of money and personnel on the part of the international community. As a result, this approach has only been implemented seriously in the case of Bosnia, the only country where the international community has made an open-ended commitment of money and power to see the job through to the end. Six years into the process, progress is excruciatingly slow and not even a glimmer of light is waiting at the end of the tunnel. But elsewhere in the world, including Afghanistan, the international community pre- scribes this model without providing the resources. The most obvious missing resource in Afghanistan is a robust international peacekeeping force. 24 Foreign Policy [ Think Again ] The issue here is not simply political will. The resources are just not available. Consider the list of current nation-building projects: Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, the drc, and Burundi. Plus, Somalia is again on the international radar screen. If an agreement is reached, nation-building efforts will begin in Sudan. And should the Bush administration succeed in dislodging Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the reconstruction of Iraq might be forthcoming. Meanwhile, the international community has yet to cough up the nearly $400 million it pledged to fund the budget of the nascent Afghanistan government. Consequently, the international community has to set more modest goals for nation building and then tailor those goals to each country's reality. Unpleasant compromises are inevitable. If the inter- national community is not going to disarm Afghanistan's warlords, it will have to deal with them in other ways because they will not just dis- appear on their own. It has to make at least some of them less dangerous and disruptive by using aid to co-opt them into the government. If nations do not want to occupy Somalia and impose state structures on warring clans, they should consider helping the regional governments that have emerged to fill the void, beginning with Somaliland. In some cases, such as in the drc, the international com- munity should either accept the disintegration of the country or allow nondemocratic leaders to use force to put the state back together. These are all unpalat- able choices. But those who believe that the inter- national community knows how to turn collapsed states into democracies should think again. Robert D. Kaplan's The Coming Anarchy: Shattering the Dream of the Post Cold War (New York: Vintage, 2001) provides a somewhat apocalyptic view of what a future without nation building may hold and should convince even skeptics that the international community cannot avoid the task. For dismal views of state disintegration in Africa, see Karl Maier's This House Has Fallen: Midnight in Nigeria (New York: PublicAffairs, 2000) and Michela Wrong's In the Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz: Liv- ing on the Brink of Disaster in Mobutu's Congo (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001). Max Boot puts modern-day peacekeeping in historical context by chronicling the United States' 200-year history of undeclared, small wars abroad in The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power (New York: Basic Books, 2002). Images of nation building as a quagmire are largely influenced by accounts of Somalia, such as Michael Maren's The Road to Hell: The Ravaging Effects of Foreign Aid and International Charity (New York: Free Press, 1997). For a detailed view of the challenge of nation building, the reports of the International Crisis Group's (icg) Balkans pro- gram, available on its Web site, are unparalleled. In "True Believer" (Foreign Policy, March/April 2001), Gareth Evans, icg's president and former Australian foreign minister, offers his views on when the international community should intervene in civil conflicts. Go to the United Nations Transition- al Administration in East Timor Web site for an account of nation building in East Timor. On the role of war in nation building, see The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), edited by Charles Tilly. Robert Jackson's Quasi-states: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) is the best account of the problems of states established by international fiat. On the role that nongovernmental organizations play in nation building, see Joseph Hanlon's Mozambique: Who Calls the Shots? (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991). Marina Ottaway and Anatol Lieven offer a skeptical perspective on the future of a democratic state in Afghanistan in "Rebuilding Afghanistan: Fantasy versus Reality" (Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2002). For links to relevant Web sites, access to the FP Archive, and a comprehensive index of relat- ed Foreign Policy articles, go to www.foreignpolicy.com. [ Want to Know More? ] THE BETTERYOU KNOW IT,THE SMALLER ITGETS. At Thunderbird,The American Graduate School of International Management, we believe there's no better way to get acquainted with this world of ours than to travel and trade freely in it. With open borders,every nation has the opportunity to advance both socially and economically. As former Thunderbird President William Shurz stated in 1951:"Borders frequented by trade seldom need soldiers." It is our belief that those words couldn't be more relevant than they are today. To learn more about Thunderbird,please visit www.thunderbird.edu.