NUMBER 64 | Fall 2009

TheStanleyFoundation

PROVOKING THOUGHT AND ENCOURAGING DIALOGUE ABOUT THE WORLD

INS IDE Smarte r Peacebu i ld ing • The Case for Targeted Inte rvent ions • Aver t ing Chaos in Kenya

Frag

ileSt

ates

Safe Haven? A perpetually weak, sometimes nonexistent, central government in Somalia has long created prime conditions for terrorist trainingcamps, offshore piracy, and illicit trafficking. Here Somalis are trained to handle assualt rifles at the Arbiska training camp just outside the capi-tal, Mogadishu. (AP Photo)

World’s Weakest NationsPose Greatest ThreatsStanley Foundation promotes stable,responsible states

3Fall 2009

The most disturbing headlines in the world todayall seem to share something in common. Whetherin Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, or elsewhere, too

often these troubling news stories stem from a countrytoo weak to control its own territory and provideopportunity for its citizens.

Today these so-called “fragile states” are seen as amajor contributor to (or even the cause of) many globalchallenges including trafficking of all sorts, piracy, ter-rorism, nuclear proliferation, disease pandemics, region-al tensions, even genocide, and more.

“In recent years, it seems we’ve had more security prob-lems from states that have been in trouble than we havefrom strong states that have been an adversary to us inthe traditional way,” says US Director of NationalIntelligence Dennis Blair. And Under Secretary ofDefense for Policy Michele Flournoy recently wrote,“Conflict in the 21st century is at least as likely to resultfrom problems associated with state weakness as fromstate strength.”

In other words, the world's weakest nations can posethe greatest global security threats. Therefore, promot-ing stronger states and preventing actions that willdestabilize more countries have become key goals of theStanley Foundation.

Much work is being done to alleviate the symptoms orcollateral damage from weak states. This includes help-ing refugees and internally displaced persons, puttingan end to human trafficking, controlling nuclear prolif-eration, stopping pirates, and so on. But most of thisdoes not promote state stability in a comprehensive,holistic manner.

At the international level, the United Nations is makingthis comprehensive approach to rebuilding states a cen-terpiece of its new Peacebuilding Commission. And the“responsibility to protect” doctrine spells out the obli-gations of both states and the world community to helpstates protect against genocide and similar terrible anddestabilizing crimes.

In the United States and elsewhere, acting on this moreholistic understanding of state stability will require newdirections in diplomacy, foreign aid programs, militarytraining and deployments, and more. We will collective-ly need to rethink many international policies andshort-term national security actions to make sure theyare not actually causing more troublesome fragile statesin the long run.

Of course, every case of a fragile or failed state isunique. This argues for a world with a full and flexibletoolbox of response options and a strategic commit-ment to use them. More importantly, it means the world

should be looking for ways to promote stronger stateslong before they are at risk of failure and conflict.

Pauline Baker and her colleagues at the Fund for Peacecall this level of state stability “sustainable security,”which they define as “the ability of societies to solvetheir own problems peacefully without an outside mili-tary or administrative presence.”

As Baker explains in this issue of Courier, none of thismeans we support authoritarian governments that existlargely on corruption and deny their citizens the civiland political freedoms we hold so dearly. But in today’sglobal system, a functioning state is required to evenengage in human rights and other issues. Ultimately weseek, and the world needs, countries that protect theirown people and participate responsibly in the interna-tional community.

Also in this issue, the Stanley Foundation’s Sean Harderexamines lingering instability in Kenya following post-election violence there and whether an intervention bythe international community in 2008 was one of thefirst applications of the “responsibility to protect” prin-ciple. And the foundation’s Michael Kraig looks at whatworks and what doesn’t in helping states move fromfragility to stability.

In all of this we must remember that doing this workwell is to our common benefit. As US Ambassador tothe United Nations Susan Rice said in a recent speech,“Our values compel us to reduce poverty, disease, andhunger; to end preventable deaths of mothers and chil-dren; and to build self-sufficiency in agriculture, health,and education. But so too does our national interest.Whether the peril is terrorism, pandemics, narcotics,human trafficking, or civil strife, a state so weak that itincubates a threat is also a state too weak to contain athreat. In the 21st century, therefore, we can have nodoubt: as President Obama has said time and again,America’s security and well-being are inextricablylinked to those of people everywhere.”

—Keith PorterDirector of Policy and Outreach, The Stanley Foundation

Online ResourceFor more information on fragile states and to see aranking of the world’s weakest nations, visit the FailedStates Index put together in collaboration between theFund For Peace and Foreign Policy magazine:www.foreignpolicy.com/failedstates.

Cover PhotoNot Child’s Play. Child soldiers of the Mai Mai militia carry smallarms in Kanyabyongo, Democratic Republic of Congo, demonstratingone of the more tragic outcomes of state fragility. One of the charac-teristics of fragile states is a failure of government to hold a monopolyon power. (Marcus Bleasdale/VII)

Smarter Aid Can End ConflictsNew peacebuildingapproaches can buildcapacity in post-conflictcountries

4

From Asia to Africa, the world is experiencing asevere strain on existing, tried-and-true tools fordealing with conflict-prone societies. Neutral and

independent humanitarian relief workers are increasinglyattacked and even killed, caught in the crossfire between“spoilers” of the peace. Peacekeeping budgets are balloon-ing, the provision of armed peacekeepers is not keeping upwith demand, and the neutral doctrine of peacekeepingitself is proving increasingly unable to protect citizens andleaders in countries prone to instability and violence.

Frag

ileSt

ates

Building Peace. Afghan men work on road constructionunder the World for Food Programme’s food-for-workerproject through which more than 560,000 people wereassisted with more than 10,000 tons of food in March of2009. Capacity building in post-conflict situations may beone of the only ways to sustain peace. (UN/DPI/WFP)

5Fall 2009

to each country. These “drivers” foster grievances andcause violent conflict, and so the world needs the creationof new programs, methods, and civil servants to addresssuch factors directly on the ground.

A More Nimble UNTo help encourage such processes in fragile states, anall new UN organizational player was created by the2005 Millennium Summit, namely, the PeacebuildingCommission and the associated Peacebuilding Fund(PBF). The ultimate founding intentions of this newbody of instruments are to bring together all of the rel-evant players involved in immediate post-conflictpeacebuilding or early recovery. Financially, the role ofthe PBF is to establish a crucial bridge between conflictand recovery at a time when other funding mechanismsmay not yet be available, and to do so in a way that isfar more flexible, quick, adaptive, and “risk acceptant”than existing global development instruments, whichtend to be highly bureaucratic, slow, and risk-averse.

Notably, the fund aims to address countries’ immediateneeds, promote coexistence and the peaceful resolutionof conflict, as well as reestablish essential administrativeservices and infrastructure. Currently, the fund is sup-porting the provision of “peace dividends” in Guinea-Bissau, the Central African Republic, Burundi, andSierra Leone.

Politically, the Peacebuilding Commission is made up ofactual UN member states, including troop contributingcountries; large financial donors; regional powers; for-mer post-conflict states; and representatives of theSecurity Council, the General Assembly, and theEconomic and Social Council. The commission is strug-gling with an evolving political methodology thatinvolves a top-down “strategy process” or “country-specific meeting” for each unique case. This allows theUN secretary-general to send a team of officials andexperts into a post-conflict society to evaluate exactlywhat is needed from the international community topatch holes in sovereignty and deliver immediate peacedividends most effectively to exhausted civilians.

Political support for these new peacebuilding instru-ments, however, varies widely. The five permanentmembers of the UN Security Council, including theUnited States, have not fully embraced them. That’s duein part to a commitment to their own foreign aid pro-grams as tools of influence toward other states.However, there is widespread hope that peacebuildingwill come to form a new “pillar” in international aid tofragile states, complementing the existing tools of devel-opment, humanitarian relief, peacemaking diplomacy,and peacekeeping.

—Michael KraigSenior Fellow, The Stanley Foundation

In war-ravaged and severely weakened states, formercombatants often remain armed and there may be adearth of trained judges or police officers to administerjustice. Basic salaries and funds for public administra-tion may not exist or may be lost to corruption. Theremay be chronic unemployment, including a lack of newjobs for disarmed combatants. There may be a lack ofbasic tools or seeds for new plantings by farmers in theoften-crucial sector of national agriculture. And graveabuses against women may still be taking place.

Indeed, one of the most persistent findings across severalcontinents is that the danger of chronic violence and inse-curity does not necessarily decrease for the average civil-ian following the end of formal hostilities. Rather, violence“mutates” into more diffuse and unpredictable forms ofcoercion such as mafia-like criminality, kidnappings, andother unorganized forms that paradoxically make manycitizens feel less secure in peacetime than in wartime.

All of which raises a simple question: are the strongeststates in the international system truly building new capa-bilities and cooperating effectively to address these post-conflict challenges in the developing world? If not, whatexactly is impeding peacebuilding? Where’s the resistance?

Understanding the ConflictOne of the principle conceptual divisions is continuedreliance on Official Development Assistance (ODA) bythe world’s most wealthy states, versus qualitativelynew approaches and instruments that are needed fordeveloping societies where strong sovereign institutionsdo not yet exist. Many governments still propose usingthe United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals asobjectives and indicators of success for countries emerg-ing from conflict and, indeed, development assistance isincreasing for fragile/post-conflict states. For instance,there has been a great expansion in mandates for devel-opment funding toward child combatants and de-mining,and up to 38 percent of all ODA in 2007 went to projectsthat tackled issues dealing with the nexus between securi-ty and development.

However, in the end, ODA and peacebuilding are notthe same. The “ODA approach” fails to recognize thepolitical nature of development aid in the context ofan immediate post-conflict situation where money,technical advice, and provision of security can havethe effect of skewing benefits and legitimizing andempowering some actors over others. Humanitarianand developmental perspectives lack political sophisti-cation in the countries concerned, in part becausedonor countries are often afraid to deal with localinterests and politics head on.

Overall, there needs to be a clearer understanding of thestructural factors—or “conflict drivers”—that are unique

Much has been written about fragile states and their dire consequences, butcomparatively little on how to prevent state failure and promote state sta-bility. The key question is: can we foster sustainable security so that frag-

ile states can resolve their own problems peacefully, without an external military oradministrative presence?

The short answer is “yes,” but with caveats. Sustainable security does not meanpreserving “strongman states,” where stability lasts only as long as the leaders arein power. Predatory regimes were supported during the Cold War to gain ideologi-cal advantage, but by propping up authoritarian personalities in the 20th century,the superpowers helped establish conditions for the emergence of the fragile statesof the 21st century. Promoting sustainable security also does not mean external mil-itary intervention to bring down rogue or unfriendly regimes. The overthrow ofSaddam Hussein removed a brutal tyrant, but it also precipitated state collapse,insurgency, and civil war, the consequences of which are yet to be fully realized.

Military intervention may be necessary to save lives when mass atrocities are threat-ened. Without a forward-looking strategy, however, it risks leaving behind a politi-cal vacuum that will be filled by factional warlords, as occurred in Somalia, or afrozen conflict, as in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where hostilities ended on the battlefield,but did not dissipate in the hearts and minds of the ethnic rivals.

The Essence of State BuildingThe best way to promote sustainable stability is, first, to identify the risks of state fail-ure through early warning in order to identify where international intervention mightmake a difference. Second, strategies must be developed to reduce the pressures on at-risk states, not only by addressing urgent problems but by building the long-termcapacity of state institutions, particularly the “core five”—the police, military, civilservice, judicial system, and leadership (executive and legislative branches). Other fac-tors are also important, such as local government and a free media, but they are partof building the core five, which constitutes the immutable core of a state. These insti-tutions must be representative, competent, and legitimate in the eyes of the people.Progress can be tracked by looking at how the state fulfills its functions: is it pro-viding human security, producing adequate public services, protecting human

World MustPromoteSustainableSecurityPauline Baker: Fragile states notdestined to be failed states

Frag

ileSt

ates

rights, ensuring the rule of law, fighting corruption,reducing poverty, growing the economy, fostering thewell-being of the population, enforcing physical con-trol throughout the territory, and acting responsiblyin the international arena?

State building involves complex tasks. Often, they aretedious endeavors involving the establishment ofadministrative practices, such as financial disclosure,a professional public service, merit-based appoint-ments, tax and revenue collection, and governmentaccountability. However, what appears to outsiders tobe hum-drum bureaucratic reforms are often seen bylocal elites as direct challenges to their ability to accu-mulate illicit wealth, expand their power bases, andoperate patronage systems that sustain them. Statebuilding often challenges entrenched power struc-tures. Even standard functions, such as conducting acomprehensive census or holding a free and fair elec-tion, can become hot button issues because theydetermine wealth, status, and political control. Vestedinterests often distort or delay them, leaving the statewithout reliable data for development and withoutrepresentatives to address societal grievances.

Successful CasesNotwithstanding such difficulties, two countriessuccessfully pulled themselves back from the brinkthrough self-driven reforms: India and South Africa.In the 1970s, India was widely predicted to be fac-ing a Malthusian future, with high populationgrowth, poverty, cultural divisions, crime, corrup-

tion, and insufficient agricultural productivity to feedits people. Today, despite continuing poverty anddeep social cleavages, India is the world’s largestdemocracy and one of the world’s fastest growingeconomies. Similarly, South Africa in the 1980s wasa pariah state locked in intractable internal conflict.It, too, successfully turned things around through anegotiated power shift that averted state failure, mili-tary intervention, and mass atrocities.

These successful transitions show that fragile statesare not destined to become failed states. Robust andsustained reforms with visionary leadership can leadto sustainable security. The international communitycan help in important ways. For example, scientificresearch helped create the Green Revolution that fedIndia’s masses, and diplomatic pressure was exertedto reverse some of that country’s most reviled pro-grams, such as forced sterilization. Eight years aftereconomic sanctions were enacted by the US Congressagainst South Africa, Nelson Mandela celebrated theend of apartheid along with an array of internationalantiapartheid groups that provided material andmoral support.

The most difficult state-building enterprises are thosethat take place in the midst of insurgencies. A recordnumber of international initiatives have been undertak-en to stabilize such countries: NATO in Afghanistan,the African Union in Somalia, the European Union inKosovo, the UN in numerous missions, stability opera-tions by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, andinternal counter-insurgency programs in countries suchas Indonesia and Nigeria. The notion that state failurethreatens global stability is widely accepted, and theinternational community is responding.

To ensure that the world becomes a safer place, weneed to build “institutionally strong states” that arepolitically inclusive, functionally capable, and legallyaccountable. This cannot be done on the cheap or on

the quick. However, with theappropriate resources, organi-zation, and time, it is anattainable goal.

—Pauline H. BakerPresident of the Fund for Peace and

Adjunct Professor in GeorgetownUniversity’sGraduate School of

Foreign Service

Bosnia on the Brink. Fata Smajic, a 9-year-old Bosnian girlpictured here, holds a jar of fresh strawberries to sell along theroad north of Sarajevo. An escalating economic crisis and linger-ing ethnic tensions continue to threaten Bosnia’s stability longafter hostilities ended. (AP Photo/Amel Emric)

Nairobi, Kenya – Police kicked indoors as Kibera slum residents fled.One officer shot and killed seven peo-

ple in the span of two hours, including a 12-year-old child.

Two hours away, in Kenya’s Rift Valley,mobs took to the streets with machetes,clubs, and metal pipes, attacking anyonenot in their ethnic tribe. In the weeks fol-lowing Kenya’s disputed presidential elec-tion in December 2007, the country’s longsimmering ethnic and social tensions boiledover. More than 1,000 people died.

“It wasn’t just the election, but the electionwas the trigger,” said Pauline Baker, presi-dent of the Fund for Peace. “Sometimescountries just reach a tipping point wherepeople expect change, and elections areoften the vehicle of that change. Whenthose elections are rigged or stolen, peoplesay, ‘That’s it. We have no other alterna-tive,’ and violence breaks out.”

In Kenya, it was an election many voterspresumed opposition leader Raila Odingawould win. But instead, after suspiciousdelays in the vote tally, incumbent PresidentMwai Kibaki declared victory. That ignitedviolence between the country’s two largestethnic groups: Kibaki’s own Kikuyu tribeand Odinga’s Luo.

Lingering InstabilityThe near collapse of an African country rarelyattracts the attention and quick internationalaction that was eventually applied to Kenya,long considered the most stable and economi-cally developed nation in volatile East Africa.

Pressure by former UN Secretary-GeneralKofi Annan and African, European, and USleaders helped broker a power-sharing agree-ment in which Kibaki remained president butshared executive control with Odinga, whobecame prime minister.

8

Frag

ileSt

ates

Courier

Desperate Situation. A young Kenyan boy crosses a sewage stream in the Nairobislum of Kibera, one of several locations where ethnic violence and extrajudicialpolice killings occurred following Kenya’s disputed presidential election inDecember of 2007. With the coalition governments failure to live up to reformpromises, tensions are again building in this traditionally stable East Africannation. (Sean Harder/The Stanley Foundation)

How They Stopped the KillingWhen Kenya descended into post-election violence,an international efforthelped restore peace.

9Fall 2009

“Here we have the first proper illustration of what anR2P effort could deliver,” said Grignon. “In its imple-mentation it did illustrate that, yes, political action cancontribute successfully to contain a crisis, to save lives,and it was a successful illustration of what R2P reallymeant on the ground with both African and Westernactors working together.”

Still, there were some failures in the Kenyan interven-tion, and some lessons to be learned, Grignon said. Thepower-sharing agreement was essentially a compromisebetween two personalities: Odinga and Kibaki. It neverlaid out any future benchmarks for reform. That hasresulted in Kenya’s present political gridlock, a disaf-fected public, and little leverage for the internationalcommunity to use in holding Odinga and Kibakiaccountable for the reforms they promised.

Baker, of the Fund for Peace, doesn’t see the Kenyaintervention as a true application of R2P.

“I think it was more traditional diplomacy thatworked, at least temporarily,” she said. “R2P really hasgreat potential in moving the international communityforward in a way I think it needs to be moved, by creat-ing a norm. The problem, however, is that it’s beennegotiated to the point where there are prior conditionsthat have to be met before there’s real internationalintervention. That could be used by those who want toblock action.”

The R2P declaration says nations have the primary“responsibility to protect” their populations from geno-cide, war crimes, and other crimes against humanity.And the international community has a responsibility toremind states of this responsibility and offer assistance asneeded—all of which could delay a stronger intervention.

“The problem, of course, is the state is the problem ina lot of cases, not the solution,” Baker said.

—Sean HarderProgram Officer, The Stanley Foundation

ResourceInternational Reporting Project. Twelve US editors andproducers traveled to Kenya in June 2009 as part of afact-finding trip. To view their reports, visit www.internationalreportingproject.org.

Although the deal put an immediate end to the violence,tensions continue to linger more than a year later asissues of constitutional reform, land use, corruption,and extrajudicial killings remain unresolved due topolitical deadlock.

“You need to know that this country was at theprecipice,” Odinga said in an interview with 12 US edi-tors and producers who traveled to Kenya as part of theInternational Reporting Project. “The institution of thepresidency has emasculated all other institutions of gov-ernance. It’s what we call the ‘imperial presidency.’ Wewant to dismantle that, and introduce checks and bal-ances into the system.”

Government reforms won’t be easy in a country wherepoliticians are more likely to use their positions toacquire personal wealth than serve their public. Kenya’sinability to root out corruption has created a dangerous“pattern of dissatisfaction” among its citizens, saidFrancois Grignon, director of the African Program forthe International Crisis Group.

“They don’t believe that the state authority is servingeverybody equally and fairly,” he said. “They don’tbelieve the electoral system is going to arbitrate or pro-vide a legitimate, nonviolent modality to arbitratebetween political disputes.”

There’s a “creeping level of fragility” in Kenya that was-n’t there before, said Stephen Ndegwa, a native Kenyanand lead public sector governance specialist at theWorld Bank. While Kenya has transformed from anauthoritarian state to a more democratic model, a riseof ethnic violence and criminal gangs means the state islosing its monopoly on power. It serves to demonstratethat governments and the international community havenot taken issues of state stability seriously enough.

“We have not thought through state fragility as a conse-quence of massive political change,” Ndegwa said. “Thesebecome tremendously important vulnerabilities for a placelike Kenya where the entire edifice could unravel becauseof the pressures you have from the lack of fulfillment ofpeople’s economic expectations: the grinding poverty, theinability of the state to fully control violence, and theinability of politicians to actually create compacts thathold and allow them to direct the state in ways that assurestability and economic growth. So it’s really problematic.”

A First for Responsibility to Protect?The mediation Kofi Anan led to end the violence inKenya has been, in retrospect, considered by many to beone of the first applications of the Responsibility toProtect, or R2P, a UN declaration Annan helped craft toprevent genocides and other mass atrocities.

Vlad SambaiewPRESIDENT

Keith PorterEDITOR

Sean HarderDEPUTY EDITOR

Margo SchneiderCOPYEDITOR

Amy BakkeCREATIVE DIRECTOR

No. 64, Fall 2009 | ISSN 1044-5900

Courier is published quarterly by the StanleyFoundation and mailed without charge to inter-ested readers within the United States. The viewsexpressed here are not necessarily those of thefoundation.

©2009 by The Stanley FoundationTo receive future issues, contact:

The Stanley Foundation209 Iowa Avenue :: Muscatine, IA 52761 USA

563·264·1500 :: 563·264·0864 faxinfo@stanleyfoundation.orgwww.stanleyfoundation.org

10 Courier

HUMAN PROTECTION

Realizing Nuclear DisarmamentThe Stanley Foundation convened a mix of UN diplomats andother officials to examine the first steps toward a world free ofnuclear weapons. This report outlines the key points from theconference discussions, specifically noting that the world hasan historic opportunity to make great progress on nuclear armsreductions. The window for progress may last no more thantwo years. April 2009 online conference report.

The Next 100 Project: Leveraging National SecurityAssistance to Meet Developing World NeedsA collaborative effort between the Henry L. Stimson Centerand the Stanley Foundation targeted sustainable implementa-tion of UN Security Council Resolution 1540. The focus of theproject was to identify new sources of assistance for addressingendemic threats in the developing world, including poverty,corruption, infectious disease, and economic underdevelop-ment by tapping national security resources and addressingmutual concerns. February 2009 executive summary andonline conference report.

Toward an Integrated US Nuclear Weapons Policy:Address US Security in an Interconnected WorldReducing American dependency on nuclear weapons will leadto greater security for the United States and its allies andshould be the driving force behind US nuclear weapons policy.The ultimate American goal should be multilateral, verifiablenuclear disarmament, according to a new report by the StanleyFoundation. To achieve this, the US will need to take severalsteps, including adoption of a no-first-use policy, pursuing theremoval of all remaining US nuclear weapons from Europe,negotiating an extension of the START verification protocolwith Russia, and engaging China in ways that build a securenuclear future. With the incoming presidential administration,the US will undertake a formal review of its nuclear weaponspolicy. With this in mind, the Stanley Foundation launched aUS Nuclear Policy Review project to produce recommenda-tions for changing US nuclear weapons policy. January 2009project report.

Peacebuilding Following Conflict

The Stanley Foundation sponsored a conference on“Peacebuilding Following Conflict” to provide aforum for United Nations member states, officialsfrom UN departments and programmes, and experts

from leading US thinktanks to assess efforts todate on peacebuilding, andto discuss the secretary-general’s landmark reporton peacebuilding in theimmediate aftermath ofconflict. August 2009 con-ference report.

The Stanley Foundation seeks a secure peace with freedomand justice, built on world citizenship and effective globalgovernance. We promote public understanding, construc-

tive dialogue, and cooperative action on critical internationalissues. Our work recognizes the essential roles of both the policycommunity and the broader public in building sustainable peace.

We believe a new consultative mechanism of world powerssuch as an expanded G-8 should incorporate rising powers,address peace and security issues, and work toward effective

global governance. We believe US leadership and robust imple-mentation of international agreements could lead to all globalsupplies of nuclear material being secured and, where possible,eliminated. We believe state fragility must be addressed bynational policies and international cooperation that treat theissue in a holistic, comprehensive manner.

The various resources available from the Stanley Foundationaddress these three policy priorities—evolving global system,nuclear security, and human protection.

Now Available

Stanley Foundation ResourcesThese reports and a wealth of other information are available at www.stanleyfoundation.org

NUCLEAR SECURITY

The Responsibility to Protect andForeign Policy in the Next AdministrationThe “responsibility to protect” (R2P) framework offers con-ceptual, legal, and practical answers to the prevention and mit-igation of mass atrocities. In an effort to contribute to the con-tinuing debates around prevention of mass atrocities such asgenocide, the Stanley Foundation convened a dialogue amongleading US, intergovernmental organization, and civil societyexperts and officials to explore R2P-related issues, includingnew civilian and military capabilities required to implement theoverall framework. January 2009 dialogue brief.

The Roots of the United States’ Deteriorating CivilianCapacity and Potential RemediesThis brief is from a joint Stanley Foundation-Center for a NewAmerican Century project titled What an Engagement StrategyEntails: Is the United States Government Equipped? It focuseson past lessons and current realities for the reform of US civil-ian international affairs agencies to orient them toward acoherent and integrated global engagement system. October2008 dialogue brief.

11Fall 2009

At the World’s Summit: How Will Leading Nations LeadSixty years ago, the dual shocks of the Great Depression and WorldWar II spurred the creation of international institutions such as theUnited Nations, International Monetary Fund, the World Bank,and a sturdy global political order. Now we seem to be at thethreshold of another burst of invention—"Creation 2.0," as it hasbeen called. Rather than a world war, the ferment this time comesfrom the combination of a global financial crisis, the emergence ofnovel and interconnected transnational problems, and the swiftrise of a new cohort of powerful states, all of which have exposedthe limits of the post-war institutions, and perhaps rendered themobsolete. Veteran journalist James Traub, a contributing writer forThe New York Times Magazine, examines Creation 2.0 and con-cludes it will be marked more by a protracted evolution than a bigbang. June 2009 analysis brief

India RisingWhat does it mean for its aspirations if many Indians don’t havea stake in its new economic miracle? Moreover, what does India’ssuccess or failure mean for the US and for the rest of the world?Follow an award-winning team of reporters in this StanleyFoundation radio documentary as they search for answers andexplore the complexities of what many believe will be the world’snext superpower. 2009 CD.

Now Showing Rising Powers: The New Global RealityNow Showing event-in-a-box toolkits, brought to you by theStanley Foundation, offer everything needed for an easy-to-plan,successful event.

The Rising Powers: The New Global Reality toolkit features avideo that explores the rise of three countries: Brazil, China,and India.

Encourage discussion with your group on:• Countries challenging the global order.• Major issues that cut across national boundaries.• How all this will impact American lives.

The Now Showing toolkit includes:• Event planner and moderator guides chock-full of helpful tips.• Color posters to promote your event.• Discussion guides for group dialogue.• Background materials on the discussion topics.

To order your FREE toolkit, call Linda Hardin at 563-264-1500 ororder online at www.stanleyfoundation.org/nowshowing.

COMPLETE ORDER FORMto receive publications

by mail

Name

Address

City

State Zip

Phone

E-mail

ORDER PUBLICATIONS(free for single copies; for quantity orders, see below)

Quantity Title Cost

QUANTITY ORDERSPublications and Courier are available in quantity

for postage and handling charges as follows:

Individual copies Free

2-10 copies $4

11-25 copies $6

26-50 copies $8

More than 50 copies Contact the StanleyFoundation for special pricing

Please mail or fax completed form to:The Stanley Foundation

209 Iowa Avenue • Muscatine, IA 52761563·264·1500 • 563·264·0864 fax

The newest issues of Courier, as wellas new foundation work, are announced

in our monthly e-mail, think.

Visit www.stanleyfoundation.org/think to sign up.

EVOLVING GLOBAL SYSTEM

ChinaChinaChinaChina

The recent uptick in shipseizures by Somali piratesunderscores a new funda-

mental truth: The world’s weak-est nations pose the greatestglobal security threats, not theworld’s strongest.

There is now a new internationaleffort to patrol the waters offSomalia, the east African nationthat’s become a glaring example ofa failed state.

The world has undergone a greattransition from Cold War competi-tion between two ideological,economic, and military blocs to amore complex security equation.We are experiencing a global surgein transnational, stateless, andnontraditional threats, oftenemanating from failed or fragilestates such as Somalia or Pakistan.

MoreTo read the rest of the article visit:www.stanleyfoundation.org/courier.

209 Iowa AvenueMuscatine, Iowa 52761

Address Service Requested

12 Courier—Printed on recycled paper 9/09 6K

Nonprofit Org.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDCedar Rapids, IA

Permit 174

TheStanleyFoundation

Piracy, One Exampleof New Global Threats

Fragile States

REUTERS/Eric L. Beauregard/US Navy