canada’s 3d approach: coherence, confusion or conspiracy?
TRANSCRIPT
Canada’s 3D approach:
Coherence, confusion or conspiracy?
Introduction
Deconstructing “failed states” 3D approaches (Development, Diplomacy,
Defense) Sudan Afghanistan
Conclusions
“Failed States”
1. Problem looking for a solution “failure” of states sets up governance vacuum “alignment” and “local “ownership” therefore don’t
apply “democracy and local ownership are an end not a
means” (DFAIT discussion paper) 3D approaches: “harmonizing” development
strategies with military strategies
“Failed States” (cont’d)
2. Locus of “failure” is state itself• Ignores globalization and interconnectivity• In fact, international community is inherently
involved• SAPs, aid regime• Arms trade• Extractive industries• Trade regime• Investment regime
“Failed states” (cont’d)
3. Term is hyper-political:
• Broad range of contexts to which it applies• E.g. Somalia and Venezuela
• “conflict-affected” more suitable
“Failed States” (cont’d)
4. Intentions matter:• Dual purpose: threats to Canada and threats to
population• Different approaches to protect national security
and to protect populations• E.g. Afghanistan
“Failed States” (cont’d)
5. State-centric approach
• Focus on stabilizing the state• Civil society? Democracy?
• E.g. Afghanistan, Sudan
3D ApproachesSudan, Afghanistan Absence of policy framework Lack of clarity of whole of government:
integration vs. co-ordination Relationship between security and
development simplistic
Conclusions
Need for clear policy framework Transparency Guidelines
Development cannot justify military action Military action must be last- not first- resort Humanitarian action must be independent Role of donors and Bank in “Nation-building”/
“state-building” must be critically examined