Global Human Security and Development

Marvin Center Room 307, 800 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC
Friday, November 4, 2005, 10:30 AM

Panelists

Moderator

Media

Panel Presentation
Promoting Stability and Development in Fragile and Failed States
Dr. Inder Sud

Panel Summary

The first panelist, Inder Sud, Adjunct Professor of the Practice of International Affairs at the Elliott School at George Washington University and former Director for the Middle East at the World Bank spoke about his work-in-progress research on "Promoting Stability and Development in Fragile and Failed States." The research examines the characteristics of fragile and failed states and the approaches that the international community should take to promote stability and redevelopment. To begin, Professor Sud presented a definition of what is meant by fragile and failed states. According to William Zartman (1995), states collapse because they can no longer perform the functions required for them to pass as states. There are three compelling reasons why the international community to be interested in these States: international security, transnational terrorism, and interdependency of the world. According to Professor Sud, "In an interdependent world, everything is important even if it is thousands of miles away. As the saying goes, the United States is less threatened by conquered States than by failing ones."

Failure of states can have domestic, international, and global effects. Domestic effects include increase in poverty with declines in services such as electricity, water, health care, and education within the fragile or failed states. Decline in services, discontentment, or deprivation may further exacerbate the domestic situation and create an environment for more conflict to thrive, thereby creating a "conflict trap." Past studies have shown that once a country falls into a conflict trap, getting out is no easy task. Within 4-5 years, these states fall back into conflict stage. Neighborhood effects include a spillover of conflict into countries that share a border with the fragile or failed state. The consequences may bring economic, social, and security implications within the region. For example, arms enter the area and may increase conflict. Similarly, the influx of refugees may put economic or social pressures on the receiving state. Finally, the global effect indicates that failed and fragile states become havens for terrorists to launch attacks that can impact people in the entire world.

In order to respond to the global threats posed by fragile and failed states, the international community should employ two strategies—support post-conflict reconstruction and prevent failed states. To support post-conflict reconstruction, there must be an inflow of foreign aid to restore services and create jobs for the people. People want to see immediate and tangible results and know that peace is possible. Moreover, fragile and failed states often experience high level of corruption that exists within their governments, therefore it is necessary to employ contractors and NGOs to deliver services and facilitate the reconstruction process. Also, significant emphasis must be placed on providing technical assistance to rebuild government functions and reform the economic and/or political situations that failed the State. This assistance may include enactment of economic and political reforms aimed at upholding human rights and democracy, or liberalizing trade, but whatever they are, the State's true needs must be the top priority.

Prevention of failed states requires an understanding of some of the characteristics that have led to state failure. This study found that governments that were unable to meet the aspirations or maintain a quality of life of its citizens, as well as those that were less open to trade were more likely to fail. Partial democracies are more vulnerable than full democracy, but there was no distinction between the likelihood of state failure between democratic and autocratic governments. In the case of Africa however, democratic states had a higher potential of failure than autocratically governed states. Moreover, the likelihood of failure was high among very old or very new governments. Fragile or failed states in Africa also had diverse ethnic population, as well as large development imbalances between urban and rural areas.

Professor Sud suggested approaches to help fragile states, which include providing modest assistance because they have weak and poor governance performance, using NGOs and other alternative aid delivery mechanisms, promoting simple and doable reforms, and strengthening civil society. Nevertheless, promoting stability and development of fragile states is not without its problems. Some of these problems include unfulfilled expectation which can lead to resentment, security threats, and large influx of aid that give rise to mismanagement and corruption. In many cases, there is a big gap between what is promised and what is delivered so people do not see improvements in their life after the conflict. Likewise, assistance tends to flow to cities, which enlarges the gap between urban and rural areas and may create resentment and destabilize the reconstruction process. Large influx of foreign aid may also leave a negative footprint as people see NGOs and development workers having access to services while they do not. Moreover, the tendency to implement reforms quickly, such as enacting hundreds of new laws all at once, may actually de-legitimize the reconstruction process.

Professor Sud concludes that rebuilding a state is a long-term development process (likely to exceed 10 years) that must rely on alternative delivery mechanisms but cannot de-legitimize the State. The primary focus must be on building key state institution of the failed state.

Leon Fuerth, Research Professor of International Affairs at the Elliott School at George Washington University and former National Security Adviser to Vice President Al Gore followed Professor Sud with his views on "Globalization and the Acceleration of History". Professor Fuerth began his presentation by stressing the fact that globalization must be relevant to the people at the local level. He contended that only a small segment of the global population, the super-elites, has the means to escape the local, leaving all other members of society to deal with the increasing global-local impact.

Professor Fuerth focused on the role that governments play in globalization, a role that he believes is changing. He argued that governments operate on well-crafted policies to address issues facing the State, but that globalization is occurring so rapidly governments lack the time necessary to craft such policies and are forced to react to changes rather than prepare for them. In essence, governments are being overwhelmed by changes brought about by globalization.

As scientific and technological advances enter society faster than before, governments are finding that their ability to manage these new technologies is increasingly limited. Fuerth cited questions posed by the National Science Foundation that asked: what do increases in nano and information technologies mean to the future of humanity, and what is the government's ability to handle these new technologies? Professor Fuerth was doubtful of the United States government's ability to address this growth of technology—the American government has not accepted that "Social change is a function of band width". The information revolution that changed the way the world works has created the means for globalization.

It is this inability of governments to address change that led Professor Fuerth to question the future of democratic institutions over the next twenty years. With changes in society, demographics, and economies all occurring at faster rates, the democratic methods of governing may be pushed aside as public administrators are forced to make increasingly autocratic decisions for the sake of reaction. Eventually, regulation will replace government by the people. Fuerth saw this change in the recently failed vote on the proposed European Union Constitution—a document that he feels protected regulation of the system over the protection of people's liberty.

Professor Fuerth concluded with a reminder to the audience that the "History of Doctrine is the History of Error"—governments must continue to create policy to address issues and refuse to simply react to a changing world. He added that as we think of erecting structure of global governance, we all must think about "adaptation that brings coherence to adapt to the rate of change." We, as students of globalization, must keep one foot on the ground and think about how these structures will be governed. Our national responses to these changes will determine how the future will unfold.

The final panelist, Jan Aart Scholte, Professor of Political and International Studies and Acting Director of the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation at Warwick University, England, discussed the topic of "Globalization and Development: Which Post-Washington Agenda?" Reexamining the famous Washington Agenda that set the path of market-based globalization, Professor Scholte demonstrated the consequences and notions of globalization for the promotion of development throughout the world.

Globalization has connected people in new ways. Nowadays, people can be connected from every angle, militarily, linguistically, financially, and technologically. There has been an increase in what Scholte called "global connectivity." This connection has changed how we view the world and the development of areas that are less connected. Today, the idea of State-centered governance is being challenged by different visions of governance and government. The "Globalization Index", a measured of the interconnectedness of the States of the world, has increased from less than 20 percent in the early 1990's to nearly 50 percent in the early part of this decade. This increase in the interconnectivity driving development forces the question: What approach should a State take for development and governing globalization?

There is confusion on the global development arrangement. Today, people can govern globalization through States, through regional governments, and through global multinational organizations. When Professor Scholte stressed that "Global Governance if not Global Government", he does not advocate a central world government, but rather the ability of States to govern globalization. To achieve this end, he suggests that governments adopt one of the global development policies:

(a) "The Washington Consensus", which allows market liberalization to be the primary driver of globalization. Western, neo-liberal policies remain important. This policy does not suggest a return to statist geopolitics, but rather relies on ultra economic liberalization.

This policy is very regressive in nature. The cost of economic globalization is paid by the poor and those who are less interconnected. Professor Scholte and the team at the Warwick Centre have created the "Geneco Economic Inequity Index" that represents economic inequity within a State. Some examples of the index that scales from equity at 0.0 to total inequity at 1.0 are as follows:

(b) "Economic Nationalism" or "De-Globalization back to Local Communities", would represent a reorientation of economic development through protectionism. Professor Scholte is skeptical of this inward looking policy and the ability of a State to globalize with protectionism. He asserted that local policies may not be the best policies for the people that must live under these rules and that the interconnectivity of globalization could offer some protection from such negative impacts.

Professor Scholte stated that the idea of de-globalization may be unrealistic with current technological advancements. People throughout the world have come to expect the global connectivity and would be unwilling to give that up in order to protect local economic interest.

(c) "Global Social Market Approach", represents the post-Washington Consensus theory that globalization by marketization is still the best approach, but sometimes markets fail and governments must be prepared to intervene.

Scholte believes that this new form of governance needs to be expressed in policies that stop corruption, allows for debt relief of poor States, promotes cooperative reasonability, and helps to create a civil society though out the world. He feels that these policies will allow government to control the impact globalization while allowing the market to lead the way into the future.

(d) "Redistributive Global Democracy" is the idea that global government institutions should instate policies to ensure sharing of the benefits of market globalization to all members of the global community in order to create a higher level of equity. A global understanding would set the minimum quality of life and work through the interconnected market to address the roots of inequity; this is a departure from the old theory that failed to address the causes of poverty and exclusion from the benefits of the global community.

Professor Scholte concluded his presentation with the questions, what's next? What will globalization beyond modernity policy look like? How will governments handle new, post market, post-modern globalization? Few answers are available, but it is clear that globalization will not stop and that we must be prepared to govern it as best as possible.

Panelists' Bios

Leon Fuerth

Leon Fuerth

Leon Fuerth is Research Professor of International Affairs and J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of International Affairs at the Elliott School at George Washington University. Before beginning his work on Capitol Hill in 1979, Fuerth spent eleven years as a foreign service officer, serving in such places as the U.S consulate in Zagreb and the State Department.

Mr. Feurth is the former national security adviser to Vice President Al Gore. In the early 1980s, Fuerth worked with then-Congressman Gore on issues of arms control and strategic stability. When Gore was elected to the Senate in 1985, Fuerth joined his staff as senior legislative assistant for national security. When Gore became vice president, he appointed Fuerth to be his national security adviser. Fuerth served on the Principals' Committee of the National Security Council, alongside the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the President's own national security adviser.

He holds a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in history from New York University, as well as a master's degree in public administration from Harvard University.

Jan Aart Scholte

Jan Aart Scholte

Jan Aart Scholte is Professor in the Department of Politics and International Studies at Warwick University, where he also serves as Co-Director of the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation. Prior to coming to Warwick, he taught at the University of Sussex, Brighton and the Institute of Social Studies, The Hague.

Dr. Scholte's current research focuses on questions of democratizing the governance of globalization. He is the author of Globalization: A Critical Introduction (Palgrave, 2000; 2nd edition forthcoming in 2005) and International Relations of Social Change (Open University Press, 1993), co-author of Contesting Global Governance (Cambridge University Press, 2000), and editor of Civil Society and Global Finance (Routledge, 2002). Dr. Scholte is also an active member of the Steering Committee of the Globalization Studies Network.

He earned his B.A. in International Relations from Pomona College and his M.A. and Ph.D. in International Relations from the University of Sussex.

Inder Sud

Inder Sud

Inder Sud is Adjunct Professor of the Practice of International Affairs at the Elliott School at George Washington University. An economist with extensive background and experience in economic development in developing countries, Dr. Sud worked at the World Bank for over 20 years. His significant assignments included: Director for the Middle East (1995-2001); Director, Cofinancing and Financial Advisory Services (1992-1995); Senior Advisor, South Asia (1991-1992); Chief, Industry, Trade and Finance, East Asia (1987-1990) and Chief, Urban Development and Water Supply, East Asia and the Pacific (1979-1987).

Dr. Sud is also Senior Partner of Washington Associates International, an international consulting firm specializing in issues of international development and finance. He has also taught part-time at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University.

He holds a Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Engineering Economics from Stanford University.

Hossein Askari

Hossein Askari

Hossein Askari received all his education, including his Ph.D. in International Economics and Finance, at MIT. He was an instructor at MIT, Assistant Professor at Tufts University, and Associate Professor and Professor at the University of Texas at Austin. He served for two and a half years on the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund representing Saudi Arabia and was Special Advisor to the Minister of Finance of Saudi Arabia, after which he came to the School of Business at the George Washington University in 1982. He was the Director of an international team of energy experts that designed the first long-term energy plan for Saudi Arabia in the mid-1980s. During 1990-1991 he was asked by the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia to act as an intermediary to restore bi-lateral diplomatic relations that had been ruptured in 1987; during 1991-1992 he was asked by the Government of Kuwait to intermediate to improve bi-lateral relations with Iran. He has written extensively on Islamic economics and finance, the economies of the Middle East, international trade and finance, and on agricultural economics.

In the past, he has consulted with the U.S. General Accounting Office, the United Nations, the World Bank, IFC, OPIC, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu, the Ministry of Finance of Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency, Bechtel, ARCO, SUNOCO, First National Bank of Chicago, National Commercial Bank, Eastman Chemicals and other companies and organizations.