How to build a State in a non State environment?

[Steve the Planner]

Bill:

The comment on martial law is on point. This business of pretending someone else is going to be in charge until stability is reached is a pretty flat tire indeed.

The same with market and economic solutions.

Problem with economic engagement (anything beyond humanitarian and genuine reconstruction) is that, given our size and the amounts involved, we always distort the economy. (We have already done the damage, and the bigger our footprint/commitment, the more economic damage we cause.

But how do you develop a base line in a country that has been at war for thirty years, and didn't have much to begin with?

Take the population, and its internal production/output, and the number is diminimus---$100 per household??? So, what level of government, army and services is affordable? Never mind....

Afghanistan's economy has, in fact, been destroyed for a long time, and is on international aid life support, so any effort has to be carefully weighed---what has been created versus some future end state.

Pump in money for jobs/services, and you distort local wages. Pump in more food aid and you undermine agriculture.

Targeting regions is, in some ways, a whack-a-mole proposition given refugees, population instability. But starting out one region at a time to build the basics of a viable local economic infrastructure---linked to areas of prosperity/sustainability---is the only way to do that. The question is: Where is a successful example of doing this command-economy restart thing, other than in places with their own natural foundation?

The suggestion of deflating local currency to wipe out the drug profits is confounded by the reality that they profits are probably all stored in dollars (and off-shore).

[Stan]

I agree with Steve; start off with relatively small projects with good success stories and work on real goals that can be achieved.

Not sure how we get around distorting wages and food aid though. If we have a small project and don't pay, we won't get very far. Ditto for not being able to provide for one's family. Hardly something to motivate one into going to work for us while the family starves at home

[M-A Lagrange]

Step one, security. Step two, economy. Once the economy is established and we have some idea of what the country can actually sustain for a government, then, together with the locals, we build THAT level of government rather than try to install a democracy, the Cadillac (or Mercedes or Jaguar) of governments from the start.

Step 1: security
Step two: economy!
Ok, but “peace benefits” must be immediate! And at people level, not through a useless range of so call experts that will screw up everything and keep the money in their pockets.
The main problem actually is to find organisations that will not induce corruption and clientelism or patronage.
Basically almost anyone but the UN! (See the last DDR scandal in Sudan).

The best results I ever had was a short term first phase of intensive labour based programs: rebuild roads, clean the streets…
Let projects do what the government or city administration should be doing and at the same time distribute large amount of cash immediately usable.
The people will figure out how to set up and develop the local market. In such case: small is beautiful. And then they will come to say: we want schools, we want that and that.
Second thing: do not forget that health is an endless black hole that you will have to sustain artificially but is fully part of non expressed need from the populations. That will have to be founded through international organisations like MSF, Red Cross… Do not even try to make a health sector implemented by the government! It’s useless and an open door to corruption, tribalism and exclusion. Ministry of Health is here just to report that people who know what they do are doing it right, that’s all. Anyways, health sector will end up privatised by the very same governmental paid doctors that you brought.

And do not worry about banking system. It’s already in place informally. What you need is a formal banking system for you and other external actors, that’s all.

Once you have this level fixed: security + local market for small scale enterprises (shops + food market) establish and almost up and runing health sector, demand for education and grass root local government/adminisration will come from the people!

[Steve the Planner]

MAL:

Hate to be boring, but, in March 2008, I was standing at a river bank at Bayji watching families and bongo trucks full of produce trying to cross five cars at a time on a gypsy ferry.

The problem was not street cleaning in the village, and could not be addressed by quick-hits and low-hanging fruit.

The problem was that there was a pre-existing market pattern for goods to move across the Tigris at that spot, and that a bridge was needed. Period.

There was a ministerial contract to repair the old bridge, but no contractor willing to go on it (after being attacked a few times)

The other legitimate problem was that every time a bridge was replaced, it was destroyed.

So, the other problem was security.

Know how I know the bridge was really needed? The lines of trucks and cars that started queueing for the Mabe-Johnson bridges (two) before they were even completed.

The solution was, in the end, for serious and effective IA security installations on each side of the river. Then MG Hertling literally had to fly contractors and ministers up to the bridge to prove that it was safe.

Then, with security and Iraqi financing/contractors, it got rebuilt.

Once trade restarted, security started to become a self-fulfilling virtuous engine. Nobody wanted the bridge attacked again. Trade restarted.

That's wartime "re-construction" and not just gratuitous nation-building.

The only economic consequence was positive---reopening the pre-existing bridges to restart prior trade and economic activities.

PS: There was no Iraqi farmer on either side of that bridge that did not already know how to farm. He did not need a week-long course in Jordan, or a new tractor, refrigerated bongo truck or center pivot (unless his had been blown up).

He just needed the damned bridge reopened so he could go back to what he had always done. Grow stuff and sell it in the market.

If, once the market is restored, you can show him ways to improve output or reduce costs, you can be a hero. But, no bridge, no security, no market, no point.

As with the Bayji Bridge, the place & market-specific problems and solutions always seem to get lost, on the US side, in these measurables and programmatic objectives.

Hey. They built a bridge at Bayji and farming restarted! Where else can we build a bridge? How many bridges is equal to PEACE?

Wrong track.

Reconstruction is a remorseless effort in documentation and restoration of things that were before, together with enough security to let things start again (even if by martial law).

The seminal question: What was hear before, and what would it take to return that?

Nation-building is going around and asking what would you like?

In my neighborhood, the answer would better schools, smoother roads, better equipped local hospitals, lower taxes, more police patrols, escalating property values, and a closer Starbucks (but not in my neighborhood). Did I mention lower taxes?

Post-conflict humanitarian aid is a whole different thing. Ask the Red Cross. Food, shelter, treatment, refugee/resettlement assistance.

Why don't our programs focus, for example, on documenting and resettling refugees? Isn't that a valid way to stabilize a community in conflict?

[Stan]

Post-conflict humanitarian aid is a whole different thing. Ask the Red Cross. Food, shelter, treatment, refugee/resettlement assistance.

Why don't our programs focus, for example, on documenting and resettling refugees? Isn't that a valid way to stabilize a community in conflict?

Steve,
IMO refugees and the crisis they bring are nothing but a huge cash cow. Not sure what sort of success you would have with documenting and resettling in Iraq, but I can tell you a lot about Sub-Sahara. It ain't happening. It kind of brings us back to your question though... What was here before and what will it take to bring it back ? Even then most of the refugees still hung out in the jungle until they were literally flushed out from another conflict.

And, oddly enough, even with 1,8 million refugees, the nation in question was still firmly in control (relatively speaking).

I share M-A's concerns with the UN and most of the aid agencies.

[M-A Lagrange]

First of all, Steve, your example is not boring or useless or even going against what I am saying.

I do believe that this bridge was not only a problem for the Iraqi people but also for the US forces and was a military strategic point (Or tactical or maneuver or WTF). And the main problem was not the bridge but security.
Once you had security, you have been able to convince contractors to rebuild it.
The bridge was a major logistical issue for the local market and for access.
Well, I had an experience a little different but similar in many points: a cross road linking an agricultural production area with a town and several militia/bandits long that road.
As you mentioned it, the people found a way to have the goods moving anyways until security came. We did the same in including all parties, working on both sides of that cross road. Was not easy… (Nice to find a grenade on your door step in the morning. Lucky it did not blow up).
Working at grass roots level by injecting $ in each and every household participates in building security (That does not replace a check point, intel and search and destroy teams…) but first of all participates in building/developing households economy. As the people get money, they can reorganize markets; reorganize the economical network according to the circumstances.

The “streets clean up project” is just an example of what you can do in the very early stage. What I have learned is that projects have to be with immediate effect. You have to inject cash and make it accessible right now. Waiting even several weeks (basically more than 1 month, great max) brings only problems cause the people want to be in position to rebuild their lives right now.
I like to say that the 3 phase of war for civilians are: survive, rebuild, normality.
In military timing:
Survive=shock
Rebuild= hold
Normality= build
The key moment is hold. That’s the moment you want to provide security + rebuild household economy and really build a government.

Why don't our programs focus, for example, on documenting and resettling refugees? Isn't that a valid way to stabilize a community in conflict?

Refugees are per excellence a destabilizing factor. And the problem is that they have the right to go back home but also the right to not go back were they come from but you have no right to tell them where to go.
And you have no right to bring them back at the exact same place but have the responsibility to compensate them with what they lost… (Basically sending them back home exactly where they came from is the cheapest)
I hate to say so but Kagame made a great job in relocating the refugees and redesigning the habitat in Rwanda. Some may say it was to establish control over –populations, some may say it was to facilitate security provision…

Also I agree with Stan, refugees are cash cow.

[Steve the Planner]

Stan/ MAL:

Having spent time with the UN (after reading the De Mello Book), I can only say that they have a lot of intelligent and committed people on the ground struggling to obtain approvals/funding/staffing through a very complex structure.

The current UN SRSG is a formidable example of competence and commitment, as I learned working for his political section in Iraq.

This business of looking at wars and refugees in different modes is the challenge.

Refugees usually become mobile well-before actual conflict, and, logically, will hide in the jungle as long as they need to before returning. The history of forced and non-forced resettlements is complex.

The problems during conflict are complex, including dealing with refugee mobility through the lines, assistance for internal refugees, and bad guys using refugees as cover for their purposes. My belief is that our military tactics do not fully comprehend or address pitfalls and opportunities to actively manage refugee issues.

If money is a weapon of war (a concept which I have problems with), then surely refugee management/control is one, too. These are the actual people to whom the hearts and minds are attached.

The problem, however, for post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction is that it just isn't over until all viable and willing resettlement has occurred.

To date, the US has not dealt with this phase/activity except as to assistance for external refugees, and resettlements to the US.

having spent time with UN folks involved in serious refugee issues, and studying them independently, I know there is much we don't know or have needed skills in.

This is the place where the deal is really closed---whether we actually do it or not, it is the end game, so it would be nice to be on our radar.