Introduction
In July 2004 the State Department openedthe Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruc-tion and Stabilization (S/CRS), borrowingfunds and personnel from elsewhere in thedepartment. The creation of the office wasinspired by a sense of Congress resolutionspearheaded by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) inthe Senate Foreign Relations Committee andcosponsored by Sens. Joseph Biden (D-DE)and Chuck Hagel (R-NE).
1
The resolutionsought to “provide for the development, as a core mission of the Department of State andthe United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment, of an effective expert civilianresponse capability to carry out stabilizationand reconstruction activities in a country orregion that is in, or is in transition from, con-flict or strife.”
2
The Senate bill proposed the creation of a standing Response Readiness Corps of 250people drawn from the State Department,the Department of Defense, and other execu-tive agencies to conduct nation-buildingactivities. The bill also recommended the for-mation of a Response Readiness Reserve witha staff of more than 500 that could be calledup “as needed to carry out the purpose of theCorps.” Under the Senate bill, S/CRS wouldreceive initial funding of $100 million; eachyear thereafter S/CRS would receive “suchsums as may be necessary to replenish” theinitial funds.
3
The reasoning behind the creation of suchan office was clear. Lugar, explaining the bill ata March 2004 hearing, argued, “Internationalcrises are inevitable, and in most cases, U.S.security interests will be threatened by sus-tained instability.”
4
A few weeks later, duringan interview on National Public Radio, Lugarsaid, “The sea change, really, in our foreignpolicy is that now it is acceptable and, in fact,desirable for Americans to talk about success-ful nation building.”
5
Carlos Pascual, the first coordinator forreconstruction and stabilization, and StevenD. Krasner, director of the State Department’spolicy planning staff, argue that “weak andfailed states pose an acute risk to U.S. andglobal security.”
6
Behind those sentimentslooms the volatile and unraveling security sit-uation in Iraq. According to the CongressionalResearch Service,For many analysts and policymakers,the ongoing Iraq operation illustrates a U.S. government need for new planningand coordination arrangements thatwould provide a leadership role for civil-ians in post-conflict phases of military operations and new civilian capabilitiesto augment and relieve the military assoon as possible, and greater interna-tional coordination.
7
The legislative process eventually producedPublic Law 108-447, a version of the Senate billthat only establishes the office and lays out itsmandate. In addition to “monitoring politicaland economic instability worldwide to antici-pate the need for mobilizing United States andinternational assistance for countries or regions[in, or in transition from, conflict or civil strife],”the office is tasked with “determining the appro-priate non-military [responses of the] UnitedStates, including but not limited to demobiliza-tion, policing, human rights monitoring, andpublic information efforts.”
8
That law did notprovide for any of the funding or staffing pro-posals contained within the original bill. Although the law created a legal basis forS/CRS, Congress starved S/CRS of funding inthe 2006 foreign operations bill. Congress didallocate $24.1 million to staff S/CRS, but itzeroed out the $100 million request for a “con-flict response fund,” which would have creat-ed a standing corps of nation builders. Duringthe conference on the bill, Congress requestedthat, before the State Department resubmits a funding request for the conflict response fundin 2007, it provide Congress with a “compre-hensive, disciplined and coherent strategy detailing how [S/CRS] will coordinate” theU.S. approach to postconflict operations.
9
When the State Department resubmits therequest for funding, members of Congressshould consider that the arguments in favor of
2
When the StateDepartmentresubmits therequest forS/CRS funding,members of Congress shouldconsider that thearguments infavor of the officeare deeply flawed.
Leave a Comment