COLUMN:Pre-emptive nation-building
September 22, 2002
The Bush administration’s new policy shift from deterrence to pre-emptive strikes is one that will most likely serve as more than a prophylactic. In addition to the “prevention” side of pre-emptive strikes, my guess is that the United States will be involved in plenty of “morning-after” nation-building operations. Proponents of the new policy and the Bush administration’s more aggressive stance against foreign threats, perceived or real, have been reveling in the prospect of a regime change in Iraq.
Such instances may become the status quo of U.S. engagements abroad, affecting change in a current government and creating a new one. While some would like to believe that simply diffusing American culture throughout the globe will create a more stable world order – there is an adage that two countries with McDonald’s will not go to war – the idea is that the United States will become enmeshed throughout the world in nation-building as our foreign policy priority.
Certainly, champions of Bush’s brand of more aggressive meddling will cite the successes of Japan and Germany as proof of American expertise in nation-building. However, we assumed not only the financial responsibility of reconstructing our former adversaries half a century ago, but we also have the ongoing task of providing a great deal of security for these nations. Indeed, part of their success can be derived from the immediate concerns of security they did not have to attend to and the massive amounts of humanitarian aid we poured in.
Whether we actually have the resources and the will to undertake such intense operations in myriad situations abroad, the question remains: How can we effectively engage in nation-building in such a way that the outcome will more approximate Japan than Somalia?
First, even before a cease-fire agreement (assuming we actually attack Iraq), we need to be forward-thinking enough to support a progressive, rather than punitive, peace accord. Saddling a nascent government with huge reparations is a policy that will only mask the problems of poverty that spawned the conflict in the beginning. Hitler rose to power on the backs of a German people so dragged down by heavy reparations to France they looked to any leader willing to restore their pride and economic power, despite U.S. humanitarian assistance.
Second, nation-building efforts need to be made at several levels. Obviously, securing the area in conflict and distributing aid are only part of effectively assisting a new government. The assistance in developing civil society and governance cannot be understated. Today, we still see the effects of African states thrust into civil unrest immediately after gaining independence, thanks to colonial powers who pulled out with everything, including the filing cabinets and telephones in the government offices.
Nation-building efforts need to be multilateral. Sierra Leone’s transition from civil war to peaceful elections can be attributed to its neighbors and their vested interest in ending the war. Nigeria was especially willing to rebuff rebel forces and assist in economic development. Great Britain was also willing to send in government experts and security forces to its former colony in efforts to establish and train the civil service. The United Nations sent peacekeeping forces, deployed in their typical mode of engagement, but at the same time backed up by British and Nigerian troops who gave the rebels motivation for staying in the peace process. In the case of countries like Sierra Leone, nation-building may not be sufficient. The war in Sierra Leone was arguably only one front in a war throughout West Africa, spurred by diamond smuggling and a struggle for power that left hundreds of thousands of dead, displaced and maimed people in its wake. Broader, more global measures aimed at ending illicit trade in gems, drugs and other valuable commodities are required to stamp out the markets alive and well in regions rife with conflict.
Nation-building is not so deceptively simple as riding in the victors and establishing a miniature United States in every nation we oppose. It is a time-intensive, collaborative and skilled process, requiring ongoing commitments of military forces, money and U.S. civil service personnel. To only engage pre-emptively without adequate attention to the underlying reasons for conflict will only perpetuate excuses to use pre-emptive strikes.
Rachel
Faber
Machacha
is a graduate student in international development. She is the opinion editor of the Daily.