| |
Contributions from
the Column
Studies and reports
Failed states – liberal protectorates as answer?
Ten years of the Cairo Action Programme – no reason to celebrate
Transparency International: corruption in poor countries serious
Services: privatisation is not the real answer
“Some of the criticism directed at the IMF is not valid”
11/2003 |
|
[ Political science discussion in Mainz ]
Failed states – liberal protectorates as answer?
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, whose main planners sheltered in Afghanistan, have made clear that failure of state authority can endanger global security. Since the classic instruments of development policy can do little in failing states, military interventions in such countries increased in the 1990s. Under the umbrella of the United Nations, a regime of humanitarian interventions aimed at nation-building from outside has emerged, which some describe as ‘liberal imperialism’. Representatives of academia, politics, development cooperation practice and the media discussed the opportunities and risks of this new ‘liberal interventionism’ in Mainz on September 23 at an event organised by the Development Policy section of the German Association of Political Science.
Ulrich Menzel, of the University of Brunswick, who at the beginning of the 1990s triggered a long-running controversy with his thesis on a “trusteeship” for failed developing countries, said that in view of the present spread of economies of violence and war, classic development cooperation must open itself to the goals of the “new interventionism”. He said development cooperation was pointless without an effective state monopoly of power – which, if necessary must be installed from outside. To destroy the network of violent actors in failing states the industrialised nations must also be prepared to resort to “robust” military interventions.
Franz Nuscheler, of the Institute for Development and Peace, Duisburg, agreed with Menzel that that there was a right to interventions on humanitarian grounds. But, he said, the Iraq conflict had thoroughly discredited liberal interventionism. In view of the meagre record of success of UN blue-helmet missions so far, Nuscheler called for a stronger role for the regional organisations in crisis management.
Aurel Croissant, of the University of Heidelberg, analysed the temporary UN protectorates in Cambodia and East Timor and concluded that humanitarian interventions could certainly contribute to the pacification of countries torn by civil war. But, he said, the prospects for long-term democratisation from outside were rather low. Adolf Kloke-Lesch, of the German Development Ministry (BMZ), shared this view, although he warned against deriving from it short-term crisis management and ignoring the development of longer-term perspectives.
Rainer Tetzlaff, of the University of Hamburg, pointed out that in many failed states an illegitimate monopoly of power competed with power oligopolies which in the people’s view often could claim greater legitimacy. In such hybrid systems, he said, the establishment or reinforcement of the state monopoly of power called for by Menzel was not necessarily the best strategy. Under certain conditions, recognition of local power oligopolies could also contribute to the stabilisation of failing states.
|
