‘Failed States’ and the Northwww.globalsocialjustice.comJustin Frewen

The current wave of interest on the part of the international community, or moreprecisely the more economically developed regions in the North such as the EU, tointervene in states classified as having failed, is not a new one. As Rondinelli andMontgomery observe:

History is replete with attempts by foreign governments either forcibly or throughdiplomatic pressure to impose governance institutions on other states. For centuries,European powers displaced indigenous governments in Africa, Asia and Latin America inthe quest to build colonial empires. (2005: 15)

The present approach to state-building can arguably be traced back to the post WorldWar II occupations of Japan and Germany and the provision of US aid through theMarshall plan to assist in the reconstruction of Europe. Further historical traces can alsobe seen in the United States led military interventions in Southeast Asia, Latin Americaand Africa to remove ‘hostile’ regimes and rebuild conflict-ravaged countries as ‘democratic market’ economies. However, striking discontinuities also exist with theseprevious state-building efforts, the majority of which can be attributed to the end of theCold War and the attendant change in the ‘character of conflicts’.So, why do certain states become involved in trying to assist ‘failed states’ identify andimplement solutions to their internal conflicts and/or political instability?Explanations tend to fall broadly into two camps. The first of these might be referred toas that of the liberal internationalists or liberal cosmopolitans, who emphasise the moralimperatives of providing assistance to protect the rights of those living under dictatorialor harsh authoritarian regimes. The second would be the realist camp, which contendsthat ‘failed states’ are a source of insecurity to the whole global community including,most importantly, the North.Of course, in reality, those advocating for direct intervention or the provision of assistance to countries suffering from domestic conflict often draw upon the argumentsof both the liberal internationalist and realist camps. The 2003 invasion of Iraqdemonstrates this rhetorical approach where both security and humanitarian concernswere raised at different stages to justify the US-led invasion.In either case, however, states that are subject to ‘interventions’ or that become therecipients of assistance programmes

are generally regarded by the international development establishment as displayingcharacteristics of ‘failed states,’ i.e., their state apparatuses are unable to exercise full control over their respective territories, are unable to fulfill domestic and international development and legal obligations, lack effective national judicial systems to ensure the‘rule of law,’ do not demonstrate the requisites of liberal democracy, and are unable to prevent their territories from being used in the perpetration of economic and other crimes. (Guttal 2005a: 40)

Of course, the international development establishment or community is not composedof all states equally but is rather predominantly comprised of states located in the North.

It is therefore these states and, in particular, the US which sets the international agendaas to which states might be ‘eligible’ for ‘failed state’ status.There is one other category of state that is generally considered as requiring state-building support. These are states that are emerging from a period of domestic conflict.As the World Bank reported in 2006, some 20 million people worldwide lost their livesthrough civil wars with another 67 million being displaced. In the fifteen years leading upto 2006, some 16 of the 20 poorest countries in the world had suffered from a majorarmed conflict.However, despite an annual increase in the number of new conflicts breaking out sincethe end of the Cold War, the total number of ongoing armed struggles experienced adecline for the first time since WWII, as the number of resolved conflicts exceeds newconflicts. This positive development meant that the period between 1992 - the high pointfor internal conflicts in the post-World War II era - and 2003 saw a reduction of 40% inthe number of state-based conflicts worldwide. The success of state-building operations has varied considerably, with most failing to liveup to expectations, even when they were relatively modest. According to Paris and Sisk,the operations of the international agencies in Liberia and Timor Leste “prematurelyreduced their efforts to secure peace in the wake of conflict”, in Bosnia and Kosovo

there was an increase in the frustration levels with the international community as “international state-building efforts have lingered on in seeming perpetuity, whilereconciliation and institutional reform efforts have stalled” while post-invasionAfghanistan and Iraq are experiencing critical and exceptional difficulties in theirattempts to construct “effective and legitimate governmental structures”.Serious questions have also been raised as to the sustainability of the internationalcommunity’s institutional reform efforts in what were hitherto generally regarded as themost successful state-building operations in countries such as Cambodia, Burundi andthe Democratic Republic of Congo.Other commentators would argue though that while the record may be far from perfectin terms of the assistance and backing the international community has provided to ‘failed states’, failure to provide such assistance would significantly raise the risk of violence re-erupting with the consequent humanitarian risks for the indigenouspopulation as well as provoking potential security risks for the international community.Given the immense challenges inherent in assisting ‘failed states’ the internationalcommunity, particularly states in the North, is now cooperating to an ever greater extentto deliver the state-building support. In this respect, the partnership which hasdeveloped between the EU and the UN over the past decade or so, has assumed an evergreater importance. Contributing almost two fifths of the UN’s budget, the EU hasemphasised its strong commitment to a policy of international multilateralism. Seeingthe UN as a critical component of its’ external policy efforts, the EU has tried to use theUN as the ideal forum for the construction of an international structure founded on ‘universal’ rules and values, that will facilitate a rapid response on the part of theinternational community to any global challenge, threat or crisis that might emerge.This policy of international cooperation can be seen clearly in the high level of coordination between the EU and the UN in the area of state-building, both in the areasof peacekeeping and peace-building. In Chad, the EU, through its member states,provided a bridging operation until the UN was in a position to establish its own regionalmission there. The UN for its part has also provided support to the EU, as in Kosovowhen its Interim Administration set the stage for the formation of the European UnionRole of Law Mission.