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