Lesson 4 - The Evolution of Ideas For Peacebuilding

PEACEBUILDING
LESSON
The Evolution of Ideas for
4 Peacebuilding
The United Nations was one

of the first organizations to
think about peacebuilding
and how to bridge the gap
between peacekeeping and
post-conflict peacebuilding.
UN Photo #782277 by Harandane Dicko.
In this lesson » Lesson Objectives »
Section 4.1 Global Overview of the Evolution • Be aware of the various studies that led to the concept
of Peacebuilding of peacebuilding.
Section 4.2 The World Bank on • Know the various organizations that promote
Peacebuilding peacebuilding.
Section 4.3 American Views on Nation- • Comprehend the various elements of a peacebuilding
building (Peacebuilding) strategy.
Section 4.4 The Organisation for Economic • Understand the complexities of conducting
Co-operation and Development peacebuilding efforts.
Section 4.5 Alliance for Peacebuilding
Section 4.6 Final Discussion
PEACE OPERATIONS TRAINING INSTITUTE
88
LESSON 4 | The Evolution of Ideas for Peacebuilding
A view of the bronze sculpture “Let Us Beat Our Swords into Ploughshares” by Evgeny Vuchetich. The sculpture was presented to the
United Nations in 1959 by the Government of the Soviet Union. In the background is part of the General Assembly building with a
sculpture by Ezio Martinelli. 24 October 2018. UN Photo #783552 by Rick Bajornas.
Section 4.1 Global Overview

of the Evolution of
Peacebuilding
The United Nations was one of the first organizations to
think about peacebuilding and how to bridge the gap between
peacekeeping and post-conflict peacebuilding. Secretary-
General Boutros-Ghali stimulated the world to consider and
comprehend the various aspects of peacebuilding. At the
time, peacebuilding was a concept most familiar to NGOs.
Scholars, like the American John Paul Lederach, began talking
and writing earnestly about peacebuilding in the late 1990s.
By the turn of the twenty-first century, others picked up the
mantle and began espousing the value of peacebuilding.
89
Today, many organizations study and analyse the various aspects of helping nations either avoid conflict or
rebuild themselves after violent conflict, including the United Nations, the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD), and others. This effort includes the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
and their successors, the Sustainable Development Goals. Many nations around the globe support these goals to
alleviate hunger, end suffering, and promote economic prosperity. Additionally, many of the actors that carried
out peacebuilding activities were NGOs. The Alliance for Peacebuilding (AfP), an international NGO, has taken the
lead in researching and reporting on peacebuilding activities, and it continues to explore and refine ideas about
peacebuilding. Its annual conferences help to build a field of professional practitioners.
This chapter will focus on the various organizations that analyse and conduct peacebuilding activities. The number
of ideas and concepts about peacebuilding can be confusing to those new to this field. This chapter begins with the
World Bank’s ideas followed by some American views. In many respects, the American views were evolutionary.
Early nation-building efforts were followed by a contraction period when the American military divorced itself from
any nation-building activities. The American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq renewed US interest. Consequently,
many think tanks and agencies began to develop ideas on what peacebuilding activities entail. The EU, especially the
OECD, was one of the first groups to begin analysing peacebuilding after Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali detailed
his ideas in An Agenda for Peace. Finally, this chapter introduces some ideas espoused by the AfP, an NGO that
networks with many organizations.
Ultimately, there are many ideas about what peacebuilding activities should include. Some ideas have changed
over time based on experiences and lessons from past activities. Table 4-1 provides some idea of the various
activities that might be considered peacebuilding. As you read each section in this lesson, refer to Table 4-1 to
compare and contrast the various activities or focus areas that comprise peacebuilding.
Table 4-1: Various Approaches to Peacebuilding
US
World Utstein UN USIP
Peacebuilding activities CSIS RAND Military AfP
Bank Group Doctrine Guidelines
or focus areas 2004 2007 Doctrine 2012
1998 2005 2008 2009
2011
Security X X X X X X X X
Civil Administration X
Governance X X X X X X X
Reconstruction X X
Reconciliation X X X
Justice X X
Rule of Law X X X X
Human Rights X
Social Well-being X X X X
Economic X X X X X X
Humanitarian Assistance X X
Political/Diplomatic X
Democratization X X X
Development X X X
90
Secretary-General António Guterres (right)

meets with Jim Yong Kim, President of the
World Bank Group. 23 September 2018. UN
Photo #775891 by Rick Bajornas.
Section 4.2 The World Bank on Peacebuilding

Compared to most international organizations, the World Bank was early in its recognition of the need to rebuild
nations after the devastation of war. In fact, the World Bank’s charter stems from its role in rebuilding Europe after
the Second World War. The first article of the 1944 Articles of Agreement for the International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development (the World Bank’s original name), stated its primary purpose: “To assist in the reconstruction and
development of territories of members by facilitating the investment of capital for productive purposes, including the
restoration of economies destroyed or disrupted by war”.1
US Ambassador Henry Owen, who consulted for the World Bank, credited the Bretton Woods Institutions (which
included the World Bank) with the stabilization of the world economy after the Second World War.2 Since its inception,
the World Bank has expanded its role and capabilities to meet the needs of its clients — nation States. The World
Bank recognized that internal/civil wars had a greater impact on failing nations than wars between States. During
the Wolfensohn Presidency of the World Bank (1995–2005), a fundamental shift took place in terms of the Bank’s
support for poverty-reduction programmes.3 In 1998, researchers Steven Holtzman, Ann Elwan, and Colin Scott
wrote a study for the World Bank on post-conflict reconstruction called Post-conflict reconstruction: the role of the
World Bank.4 The purpose of the study was to redouble the World Bank’s efforts helping nations recover from war.
Recognizing that nations recovering from violent internal conflict have needs beyond which any one nation can
provide, this report addressed mechanisms by which the World Bank could help in post-conflict reconstruction.
Holtzman, Elwan, and Scott concluded that any response to post-conflict peacebuilding would fall into four broad
areas: political-diplomatic, security, emergency relief, and reconstruction and development. The study acknowledged
that the United Nations would play a huge role in the political, emergency relief, and security aspects of peacebuilding.
It also recognized that developed countries, other regional organizations, and NGOs can play a role. The World
Bank’s most useful role would be in the reconstruction and development area. In 1997, the World Bank created a
Post-Conflict Unit to take a proactive role in determining when and how the World Bank could assist in emergency
reconstruction and long-term development.5
1) World Bank, “Articles of Agreement: International Monetary Fund and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development”, United Nations
Monetary and Financial Conference, 1–22 July 1944.
2) Henry Owens, “The World Bank, Is 50 Years Enough?”, Foreign Affairs, September/October 1994, vol. 73, No. 5, 97–108.
3) World Bank, “James David Wolfensohn: 9th President of the World Bank Group, 1995–2005”, accessed 7 November 2018.
4) Steven Holtzman, Ann Elwan, and Colin Scott, Post-conflict reconstruction: the role of the World Bank (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1998).
5) Holtzman, Elwan, and Scott, Post-conflict reconstruction, 53.
91
In the late 1990s, the World Bank made a number of adjustments in its organization and policies to help
countries emerging from violent conflict. It established two trust funds to help countries in turmoil — the Low-
Income Countries Under Stress Trust Fund and the Post-Conflict Fund — “to finance projects that promote economic
and social growth, governance, civil society participation, and human security in both conflict-affected countries
and fragile states.”6 The total grant funding (non-reimbursable monies used to support projects) from 1997 to 2007
amounted to just over $150 million.
Robert Zoellick, who became president of the World Bank Group in 2007, saw an organization in crisis; some
questioned the value of the World Bank.7 According to Zoellick, the world had fundamentally changed, and his goal
was to make the World Bank more effective, especially for people mired in poverty. This included joining forces with
the United Nations.
On 24 October 2008, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and World Bank president Zoellick formally entered into
a “Partnership Framework for Crisis and Post-Crisis Situations”. Under the framework, each organization would
work closely together to find ways to prevent violent conflict and help nations recover from violent conflict. The
framework outlines where the two organizations can integrate their efforts on conflict prevention and post-conflict
reconstruction.8
Today, the World Bank Group has two major goals: end extreme poverty and sustainably promote shared
prosperity to all nations of the world, with a focus on the bottom 40 per cent of the global population. To accomplish
these goals, the World Bank Group works through its five major institutions: the International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development (IBRD), the International Development Association (IDA), the International Finance Corporation
(IFC), the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and the International Centre for Settlement of
Investment Disputes. Both the IBRD and the IDA are dedicated to helping the world’s poorest countries.
The IBRD’s roots go back to the founding of the World Bank, and it has the same goals. To achieve these goals,
the IBRD provides low-interest loans and some grants to countries. In Fiscal Year 2015, the IBRD lent $23.5 billion.
Countries in Europe and Central Asia were the largest borrowers.
The IDA has the same focus but manages its funds in a slightly different manner. The IDA provides interest-
free loans and grants to governments of the lowest-income countries. According to the IDA, it is one of the largest
sources of assistance for the 75 poorest countries in the world.9 At the end of fiscal year 2015, the IDA provided
$19 billion in assistance, of which 13 per cent of these funds were in the form of grants.10 African countries received
the largest amount of resources. One IDA programme is the State and Peacebuilding Fund. This fund can provide
funds to nations that otherwise would not qualify for loans from either the IBRD or the IDA. From 2008 to 2018,
the State and Peacebuilding Fund provided $322.7 million in grants to 46 countries.11 The State and Peacebuilding
Fund has worked with a number of partners, including the United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO), other
national governments, regional organizations, NGOs, think tanks, and universities.
Most of the recent World Bank documents focusing on conflict-affected countries reference the World Development
Report 2011: Conflict, Security, and Development.12 This comprehensive report stated, “one-and-a-half billion people
live in areas affected by fragility, conflict, or large-scale, organized criminal violence and no low-income fragile or
6) World Bank, “Post-Conflict Fund and LICUS Trust Fund”, Annual Report 2007 (Washington D.C.: World Bank, 2007).
7) Robert B. Zoellick, “Why We Still Need the World Bank: Looking Beyond Aid”, Foreign Affairs, vol. 91, no. 2, Mar/Apr 2012, 68–78.
8) UN and World Bank Partnership Framework, 2008.
9) IDA, “What is IDA?”, accessed 24 August 2018. Available from: <http://ida.worldbank.org/about/what-ida>.
10) IDA, “What is IDA?”.
11) World Bank, “State and Peacebuilding Fund (SPF)”, 25 October 2018. Available from: <http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/state-and-peace-
building-fund>.
12) World Bank, World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security, and Development (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2011).
92
The Institutions of the World Bank Group »

“The World Bank Group is one of the world’s largest sources of funding and knowledge for
developing countries, consisting of five institutions with a common commitment to reducing
poverty, increasing shared prosperity, and promoting sustainable development.
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) lends to governments of

middle-income and creditworthy low-income countries.
International Development Association (IDA) provides interest-free loans and grants to

governments of the poorest countries.
International Finance Corporation (IFC) provides loans, equity, and advisory services to
stimulate private sector investment in developing countries.
Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) provides political risk insurance and
credit enhancement to investors and lenders to facilitate foreign direct investment in emerging
economies.
International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) provides

international facilities for conciliation and arbitration of investment disputes.”i
i) World Bank, The World Bank Annual Report 2018 (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2018), 6.
conflict-affected country has yet to achieve a single United Nations Millennium Development Goal.”13 The report tries
to answer why conflict prevention and recovery from conflict are so hard. It concludes that the only way to break
the cycle of violence is to invest in legitimate government institutions that provide security, justice, and jobs. It also
recognizes that many countries cannot break the cycle of violence without external help.
The World Bank is only a bank in that it is in the business of lending money to countries. Since 1997, the
World Bank Group has recognized that it must address the issue of fragile and failed States. One country in turmoil
has spillover effects in neighbouring countries and, in many cases, the entire region. Over the last decade, the
organization has developed a number of programmes to help conflict-prone countries. Combined, the staff of the
IBRD and the IDA totals almost 12,000 employees, of which 40 per cent work in 172 nations around the globe. The
2008 agreement between the UN and the World Bank to work together to help nations recovering from conflict is
having a positive impact.
Section 4.3 American Views on Nation-building (Peacebuilding)

Throughout its history, the United States has committed enormous amounts of resources to help nations recover
from war. When US involvement in wars ended, it was often a military task to help that nation recover. This was
most obvious following the Second World War. George C. Marshall, former chief of staff of the US Army and then the
US Secretary of State, was quick to realize that military forces could only do so much in helping a nation recover
from violent conflict. Civilians were needed to set up functioning governments. More importantly, the affected nation
should propose projects for reconstruction for other nations to fund. If the country lacked expertise, the US was
13) World Bank, World Development Report 2011.
93
ready to provide experts to assist local nationals. External facilitators could help in rebuilding State systems, but only
the indigenous people could build a nation. These ideas were the impetus behind the Marshall Plan, which sought to
rebuild Europe after the war.14
Due to history and experience, the concept of helping nations recover from conflict became embedded in
military doctrine. The US Army referred to nation-building activities as “stability operations”.15 The US involvement in
Vietnam (1956–1975) was, in many ways, a military-led effort to create a functioning South Vietnam with an overall
goal to stem communist influence. The Vietnam War was a proxy war in the greater Cold War. Casualty figures were
staggering. Some estimates calculated that close to 1 million North and South Vietnamese soldiers and more than
58,000 US soldiers died in action. Civilian casualty figures ranged from 500,000 to close to 1 million.
In 1973, the United States brokered a ceasefire and peace agreement with North Vietnam. The US withdrew
its forces from South Vietnam, and it looked like the war would be over. However, North Vietnam invaded South
Vietnam in the spring of 1975 and reunited the country under communist rule. For the US, the Vietnam War was
an embarrassing defeat. Lessons from the war, especially lessons on how to build or rebuild a country, were all but
forgotten.
Following the Gulf War in 1991, the US military had limited participation in rebuilding Kuwait after the Iraqi
invasion and occupation. In 1992, shortly after all forces had returned from the Persian Gulf, President George H.W.
Bush committed US soldiers to action in Somalia, which was a failing State. The lessons from Vietnam were stark,
and the US avoided any messy nation-building activities. Its sole task was to restore security and provide much-
needed humanitarian assistance. This continued under President Bush’s successor, Bill Clinton. During the Clinton
administration (1993–2001), the US military engaged in peacekeeping. American soldiers deployed to peacekeeping
missions in Bosnia (NATO mission), Cambodia (UN mission), Kosovo (NATO mission), Macedonia (UN mission),
Somalia (UN mission), and other smaller missions. Reminiscent of Vietnam, the military was reluctant to participate
in any nation-building activities. At the time, peacekeeping mostly focused on providing security while civilians
conducted the peacebuilding activities.
Shortly after the terrorist strikes in the US on 11 September 2001, the US military committed to finding
and eliminating the terrorist groups in Afghanistan that perpetrated the attack. Early on, there was little interest
within the military and the administration of George W. Bush, who succeeded Clinton as president, to engage in
nation-building or stability operations. In fact, while he was a presidential candidate, Bush criticized the Clinton
administration for using the military in nation-building activities.16 The same was true on the eve of the American
invasion of Iraq in 2003. The US had lost its ability to plan and orchestrate nation-building activities. Some military
officers were familiar with the concept due to their involvement in peacekeeping, but for the most part, the skills
of planning for the aftermath of war were non-existent. Consequently, US policymakers and the military did not do
well anticipating and orchestrating the restoration of law and order, the rebuilding of infrastructure, establishing a
functioning economy, or creating an effective Iraqi governing body.
The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction effectively summed up the American effort in a 2009
report: “with no established plans to manage the increasing chaos it faced, no developed doctrine of nation-building
to rely on, and no existing governmental structures through which to carry out contingency relief and reconstruction
operations, policymakers struggled to respond to a broken Iraq.”17 The American public recognized the US failure to
14) Lawrence Yates, The US Military’s Experience in Stability Operations, 1789–2005 (Fort Leavenworth, KS, US: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2006).
15) United States Department of the Army, Field Manual 31-23, Stability Operations – US Army Doctrine (Washington, D.C.: US Army, 1967).
16) Commission on Presidential Debates, “October 11, 2000 Debate Transcript”, 11 October 2000.
17) Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Hard Lessons: The Iraq Reconstruction Experience (Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing
Office, 2009), 323.
94
Exactly two months after the terrorist attacks

against the United States, Secretary-General
Kofi Annan accompanied United States
President George W. Bush to the ground zero
site at the World Trade Center in New York.
Secretary of State Colin Powell (left) joined
them at the ground zero site. 11 November
2001. UN Photo #306491 by Eskinder
Debebe.
plan and conduct nation-building adequately. News reports were not complimentary of the reconstruction effort —
and for a good reason. Both the US policymakers and the military had lost touch with the necessary skills to help a
nation recover from war. Across the globe, many scholars and international civil servants also struggled to grasp the
requirements of peacebuilding.18
US think tanks immediately went to work to draw out historical lessons on nation-building. The RAND Corporation,
the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and the US Institute of Peace (USIP) conducted key
studies on this topic.
RAND studies on nation-building
The RAND Corporation released one of the first modern studies on nation-building in 2003. Former Ambassador
James Dobbins, who was one of the most experienced diplomats in the US on peacebuilding programmes, led a team
of analysts who conducted a thorough review of the US role in nation-building. Released less than six months after
work began on rebuilding Iraq, this study analysed American post-war policies and programmes in Germany, Japan,
Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Many good lessons and themes emerged.
The analyses of each case study — except Afghanistan and Iraq — were extensive. Each case study followed a
similar format. After reviewing the facts leading to the conflict and the initial solutions, the authors provided factual
evidence that helped explain the various functions of nation-building. Each case reviewed the categories of security,
humanitarian aid, civil administration, democratization, and reconstruction in detail. This study provided insight into
the challenges of future nation-building activities and pointed out that the planning for Iraq failed to consider many
of these issues.
The strength of the work was the chapter “Lessons Learned”, which compared and contrasted the missions’
commonalities. It is clear from this chapter that the planning for the reconstruction of Germany following the Second
World War was the standard to which future planners should strive. The RAND study acknowledged that the Marshall
Plan was instrumental in the recovery of Germany, but it also attributed success in Germany to the early commitment
of humanitarian assistance, financial loans, and the leadership and security provided by the military under the
command of General Lucius Clay.19
18) There are some subtle differences among “State-building”, “nation-building”, and “peacebuilding”, but for the most part, these terms are synonymous.
19) James Dobbins, John G. McGinn, Keith Crane, Seth G. Jones, Rollie Lal, Andrew Rathmell, Rachel Swanger, and Agna Timilsina, America’s Role in
Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq (Santa Monica, CA, US: RAND, 2003).
95
The RAND study showed that both the United States and the international community were getting better
at nation-building towards the end of the twentieth century. For the US, that trend was reversed when the Bush
administration entered office in 2001. The entire administration was sceptical of the UN and reluctant to engage in
nation-building. This attitude had a significant impact on the planning of and preparation for the tasks the United
States faced in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
As the RAND study pointed out, the first key lesson was that nation-building requires an extensive number of
military personnel to create a stable and secure environment.20 Only by maintaining a secure environment can other
programmes function. The committed military units must remain in the conflict zone to allow other programmes
to take hold. The process takes time, often more time than the US military and the American people are willing to
accept.
There was a clear relationship between the success of the nation-building efforts and the length of time
international military forces remained in a troubled region. Without security, all other efforts would be in vain. The
RAND study also demonstrated that the commitment of overwhelming military power (number and capability of
military units) resulted in fewer civilian and military casualties.21
Another key lesson was the timing of local and national elections. According to the study, local elections should
precede national elections by many months, if not years. Local elections allow key national leaders to emerge. It also
allows time for deep wounds to heal among ethnic groups while providing time for reconciliation activities.22
One of the most important lessons focused on the financial requirements for reconstruction activities. By
comparing each mission as a function of per capita financial assistance in US dollars and as a percentage of per
capita gross domestic product (GDP), Germany stood out as the most financially soluble with Japan a distant second.
At that time, nation-building efforts had a much lower financial assistance rate.23
The RAND study concluded that the US-led efforts in Germany and Japan were the most successful missions.24
The authors wanted to know why this was the case. They recognized that both Germany and Japan were relatively
homogeneous countries where ethnic or group rivalry did not impact the struggle for power. Additionally, both
Germany and Japan were industrial and well-educated nations before the war, so the quality and abilities of the
people enabled them to recover faster. The authors recognized that the conflicts faced by the international community
in the last 13 years were different from those immediately after the Second World War. Ethnic and religious divisions
add more complexity. The study also went on to point out that, following the Second World War, the United States
accounted for 50 per cent of the world’s GDP, while in 1992, it amounted to only 22 per cent. This demonstrated the
challenge of getting the international community to contribute towards nation-building efforts.25
The RAND study pointed out that the US provided 25 times more money and 50 times more troops to Kosovo
than to post-conflict Afghanistan. Although the authors stated that none of these models answers all the questions,
much has been learned in the last decade. Kosovo is the best example for modern-day conflicts. The burden-sharing
worked out by the UN, EU, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), NATO, many nations,
and NGOs provided the best mix of talent and resources for effective nation-building.26
20) Dobbins et al., America’s Role in Nation-Building, 150.

23) Dobbins et al., America’s Role in Nation-Building, 156–159.
24) Dobbins et al., America’s Role in Nation-Building.
96
Additional RAND studies on nation-building
Under the sponsorship of the RAND Corporation, Ambassador Dobbins led another team to develop two more
books on nation-building. America’s Role in Nation-Building was followed shortly by a 2005 study that analysed the
role of the United Nations in nation-building.27 Both of these efforts led to a 2007 RAND publication entitled The
Beginner’s Guide to Nation-Building.28 Ambassador Dobbins recognized that nation-building efforts are complex and
demand multi-year engagement. By calling the publication a “beginner’s guide”, Dobbins conveyed his intent to
provide a doctrinal guide to those who aspire to undertake nation-building efforts. He recognized that nation-
building — or peacebuilding — was growing in importance as a tool to help nations recover from violent conflict.
Dobbins and his team took a different approach in this book. Rather than using a case-study approach, the
team analysed the various aspects of nation-building — security, humanitarian assistance, governance, economic
stabilization, democratization, and development. Drawing on research from a number of sources, Dobbins judged
“international military intervention to be the most cost-effective means of promoting sustained peace and economic
growth in societies emerging from conflict.”29
Dobbins also acknowledged the valuable impact of military peacekeeping
and peace enforcement operations to set the conditions for security while
a wide array of civilians did the work of establishing sustainable peace.
Security is absolutely necessary to nation-building, and the military is the
only organization that can provide this important function. In his book,
Dobbins noted that the United Nations, given its many years of peacekeeping
experience, is the best organization in the international system to pursue
the task of nation-building (peacebuilding).30
The book took a slightly different look at the various aspects of nation-
building. Two new categories emerged — democratization and development.
According to Dobbins, democratization is different from governance: “A
society emerging from conflict may be able to wait for democracy, but it
needs a government immediately if there is to be any law enforcement,
education, or public health care.”31 His category of governance was
essentially identical to other studies that recommended the creation of a
civil administration.
Further Reading »
When addressing democratization, Dobbins said the establishment of a
RAND studies, including
local representative government takes time and is less important than the
America’s Role in Nation-
bureaucratic functions (civil administration) of a State. The international

Building and The Beginner’s
community, when properly organized, can help provide the functions of

Guide to Nation-Building, are
governance while democratization — the process by which local people are

available to read online at
elected to office to represent the needs of all people, regardless of race,

<www.rand.org/pubs/>.
ethnicity, or religion — takes shape.
27) James Dobbins, Seth Jones, Keith Crane, Andrew Rathmell, Brett Steele, Richard Teltschik, and Anga Timilsina, The UN’s Role in Nation-building: From
the Congo to Iraq (Santa Monica, CA, US: RAND, 2005).
28) James Dobbins, Seth G. Jones, Keith Crane, and Beth Cole DeGrasse, The Beginner’s Guide to Nation-Building (Santa Monica, CA, US: RAND, 2007).
29) Dobbins et al., The Beginner’s Guide to Nation-Building, vii.
30) Dobbins et al., The Beginner’s Guide to Nation-Building, 7–9.
31) Dobbins et al., The Beginner’s Guide to Nation-Building, 135.
97
Dobbins and his team did not outline a vision for democratization, as “Democracies come in many shapes and
sizes.”32 The decision as to what form of government a country will adopt is up to its people. They might prefer a
structure that is familiar rather than an imposed replication of some other system. Dobbins did, however, promote
democracy as the best form of governance.
As for development, the RAND team resorted to a more common approach to development — devoting money
to rebuilding infrastructure and programmes that can achieve sustainable peace. The team’s research concluded
that nations recovering from violent conflict could absorb assistance at the rate of 40 to 70 per cent of the country’s
annual gross national product (GNP).33
The book devotes an entire chapter to the role of the military in nation-building. According to Dobbins:
“International military forces can separate contending parties,

disarm and demobilize former combatants, substitute for
or supplement local police, secure borders, deter external
interference and reform or create new and indigenous military
forces. Their primary objective should be to establish a secure
environment.”34
However, beyond the primary security role, Dobbins and his team recognized that the military not only provides
a secure space for aid agencies and organizations, but at times must also assist with humanitarian aid, restoration of
infrastructure, and governance. Military forces, according to Dobbins, must be able to perform the following missions:
law enforcement, DDR, assistance in elections, rebuilding infrastructure, and other civic action programmes.35
One of the most important aspects of The Beginner’s Guide was a framework on the number of international
military forces needed to conduct peacebuilding activities. In stable countries, only one (or less) soldier per 1,000
inhabitants is required to provide a secure environment. In failing or failed States, that number can grow to 10 or
more soldiers per 1,000 inhabitants. Correlating the number of soldiers per historical example to the success rate
of that operation, the larger the number of international soldiers deployed, the better the chance of success in the
peacebuilding mission. After the Second World War, Germany had more than 100 soldiers per 1,000, while Kosovo
had 20 per 1,000, both at the peak of deployments. Afghanistan in 2004 had a mere one per 1,000. Based on the
RAND team’s calculations, Afghanistan, with a population of 24.4 million people, would need an international military
force of 488,000 troops to reach the same level of effort as Kosovo. However, as local security forces became trained,
the number of international security forces could be reduced. For example, at the time that US General Stanley
McChrystal made his recommendation in August 2009 to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and President Barack
Obama for an additional 40,000 troops for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, there
were almost 90,000 Afghan National Army troops and 92,000 Afghan National Police. The president’s decision to send
an additional 30,000 troops increased to the number of American personnel in the country to 98,000. Combining
these figures with the 35,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, the total grew to 315,000 troops, which equated to almost
13 troops per 1,000 inhabitants.
These kinds of figures, however, can only be a guide. Other factors must come into play, such as the quality
of troops and the decision by national leaders on whether to allow their troops to use force. The overriding issue is
the status of the security situation. Afghanistan was much less violent in 2004 than it was in the fall of 2009. Other
32) Dobbins et al., The Beginner’s Guide to Nation-Building, xxxiv.

33) Dobbins et al., The Beginner’s Guide to Nation-Building, xxxv.
98
factors such as air power, intelligence collection capabilities, and the size of the area for logistics purposes all play
into the determination of the size of the force. A rough estimate of the situation in Afghanistan leading up to the
year 2010 and the full increase of an additional 30,000 US troops would make Afghanistan only marginally successful
based on the RAND estimates.
The remainder of The Beginner’s Guide focuses on best practices for nation-building in each of the categories —
police, rule of law, humanitarian relief, governance, economic stabilization, democratization, and development.
The real strength of the work, however, is in the chapter “Preparing for Nation-Building”. The chapter discusses
transitioning from a one-nation-led peace enforcement force to a UN- or regional organization-led peacekeeping
force. The study recommends that a wide variety of organizations become involved in nation-building efforts.
Centremost is the United Nations and its associated organizations. The World Bank and the IMF play a key role, as
do interested nations and regional organizations. As an end state, the RAND study is reasonable: “Nation-building
missions are not launched to make poor countries prosperous, but rather to make warring ones peaceful.”36
Center for Strategic and International Studies – Winning the peace
CSIS and the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) released a book on nation-building in 2004 called
Winning the Peace: An American Strategy for Post-Conflict Reconstruction. Like the first RAND study, Winning the
Peace used a case-study approach to analyse nation-building. Much of the work on this book began in 2000 with
a project orchestrated by the leaders of both organizations. John Hamre, the Chief Executive Officer of CSIS, and
American General Gordon Sullivan (retired), president of AUSA, both felt that the US efforts towards post-war
reconstruction were “ineffective”.37
In their foreword to Winning the Peace, Hamre and Sullivan observed, “Failed states matter. Such states pose
not only huge humanitarian challenges, but national security challenges as well.”38 According to Robert Orr, the editor
and one of the primary authors of the book, “The United States is in the nation-building business. … The demands on
the United States to rebuild countries — for their good and our own — show no sign of abating.”39
Besides a thorough case analysis on post-conflict strategies by the United States from scholars and practitioners,
Orr laid out four pillars of post-conflict reconstruction: security, governance, social and economic well-being, and
justice and reconciliation.
Scott Feil, a retired US Army colonel, outlined the pillar of security in the chapter called “Laying the Foundation”
in Winning the Peace. Although all the pillars are linked, none of the pillars can succeed without achieving a relatively
safe and secure environment. In basic terms, security is defined as “protecting citizens from violence”.40 The
establishment of national security architecture is key to achieving long-term security. This might mean a military force
to protect one’s national security interests and borders and an effective system of law and order (i.e. police, judicial
system, and penal system). Creating such a system takes time. Disarmament of warring factions and organizing and
training of a military and police force are necessary to achieve long-term peace. The purpose of foreign soldiers and
police as peacekeepers was to fill the security void in a failed State. With these security forces in place, international
civil servants can help re-establish the States’ political and economic systems, among others.
Again, long-term programmes were required in most cases to re-establish government functions. States fail
because governing bodies can no longer provide for the needs of the people. Outside assistance in rewriting a

37) Robert C. Orr, ed., Winning the Peace (Washington, D.C.: CSIS Press, 2004), i.
38) Orr, Winning the Peace, vii.
39) Orr, Winning the Peace, x.
40) Scott Feil, “Laying the Foundation: Enhancing Security Capabilities”, in Winning the Peace, 40.
99
constitution, forming political parties to represent the people, and monitoring open and fair elections are necessary
to establish an effective form of government.
The CSIS study included the establishment of an effective form of civil administration for the new governing
body. Some studies separate civil administration from governance. Regardless of whether the political process of
selecting or reaffirming national, provincial, and local leaders includes the civil administration, the government
requires some form of bureaucracy to function. Many who perform the duties of civil administration are not elected
officials, but they play important roles, such as enforcing rules and regulations on taxes, banking systems, licenses,
medical programmes, and infrastructure management, among others.
Economic and social well-being is another important aspect of a functioning nation. Academic Johanna Mendelson
Forman, who has experience with NGOs, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the
World Bank, penned an important chapter in Winning the Peace on social and economic well-being. To her, “It is no
coincidence that states emerging from conflict are also among the world’s poorest.”41 She went on to point out that
programmes to help a failed State economically are the most difficult to achieve. Government structures must be
created to provide the mechanisms for economic recovery. Through a legal regulatory system, governments can
stimulate the basics of trade in the private sector, stimulate international trade, and effectively manage natural
resources. To sustain this economic recovery, State governments must include education, health, and basic services.42
The CSIS study, like other studies before it, recognized that rebuilding State structures requires an integrated
strategy — a plan. Since history proved that no one nation was willing to assume responsibility for helping a failed
State, the only answer is to combine the efforts of regional organizations, international organizations, NGOs, and
other interested nations and parties. To be successful, an integrated plan must progress in an orderly fashion. Robert
Orr wrote, “Cooperation among international actors, while important, is not sufficient. Rather a strategic approach
that ensures unity of effort is essential to success.”43
A voter casts her ballot in Timor-Leste’s parliamentary elections. 7 July 2012. UN Photo #520224 by
Martine Perret.
41) Johanna Mendelson Forman, “Restoring Hope: Enhancing Social and Economic Well-Being”, in Winning the Peace, 72.
42) Forman, “Restoring Hope”.
43) Orr, Winning the Peace, 19.
100
In the book Peacebuilding: War and Conflict in the Modern World, Professor Dennis Sandole agreed with the
concepts espoused in the CSIS study and Orr’s conclusions. According to Sandole, solutions to State failure in the
postmodern world require combining the efforts of the UN, regional organizations, and NGOs. Sandole called these
problems “the complex interconnections among elements of the global problematique”.44 Sandole went on to say:
“This is one of the ‘elephants in the room’ of applied

peacebuilding, as global problems and their complex
interconnections and interdependencies tend not to be
factored into peacebuilding design and implementation, even
though, paradoxically, they may be driving the situation that
peacebuilding is meant to address. In order for peacebuilding
to be more effective, therefore, the impact of the global
problematique on any given developing, existential, or post-
conflict situation must be recognized, analyzed and responded
to in some fashion.”45
The CSIS study helped form the discussion on nation-building within the United States. It identified key areas
that need attention when a State fails: security, governance, economic and social well-being, and justice and
reconciliation. Other studies defined the various functions differently.
The CSIS and the RAND studies pointed out that Kosovo is the best modern example of failed State management.
In responding to the atrocities committed by the Serbian-dominated government in 1998, the international community
responded first with diplomatic efforts to avoid violent conflict. After over a year of negotiations, Serb attacks on
ethnic Albanians continued unabated. The Albanians, through the Kosovo Liberation Army, responded to the attacks,
and the violence escalated. As a last resort, the international community used military force through NATO to drive
the Serbs into a negotiated settlement. Finally, the United Nations took charge of rebuilding the governing structures
for the region.
US Institute of Peace – Guiding principles for stabilization and reconstruction
While the RAND Corporation and CSIS are both private American think tanks, the US Congress established the
USIP in 1984 as a federally funded organization with the mission “To prevent, mitigate and resolve conflict around
the world”.46 For the most part, USIP is a research and education organization, but it hires many experienced
peacebuilders, negotiators, and scholars from around the world, and it has published the extensive works of these
scholar-practitioners.
In 2005, several prominent individuals, all of whom were instrumental in rebuilding Kosovo after its peace
agreement with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now the Republic of Serbia), came together at USIP to write
a book on nation-building — The Quest for Viable Peace: International Intervention and Strategies for Conflict
Transformation.47 The book was a practitioner’s answer to some of the difficult issues facing the international
community in rebuilding nations.
44) Dennis J.D. Sandole, Peacebuilding: War and Conflict in the Modern World (Cambridge, UK, and Malden, MA, US: Polity Press, 2010), 171.
45) Sandole, Peacebuilding: War and Conflict in the Modern World, 171.
46) USIP, “Vision, Mission, Core Principles”, accessed 7 November 2018. Available from: <https://www.usip.org/about/strategic-plan/vision-mission-
core-principles>.
47) Jock Covey, Michael J. Dziedzic, and Leonard R. Hawley, eds., The Quest for Viable Peace: International Intervention and Strategies for Conflict
Transformation (Washington, D.C.: USIP, 2004).
101
According to The Quest for Viable Peace, the international community needed to address four strategies
(planning functions):48 planning for governance functions, security functions, justice and reconciliation, and social
and economic well-being. In approaching a conflict like Kosovo, the book strongly recommends diplomatic efforts to
resolve the conflict (Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali’s concept of preventive diplomacy) before resorting to the use
of force. The Serb policies and actions resulted in the necessity of using NATO’s military force to bring the parties to
the negotiating table.
The second important task was the establishment of a functioning political process. In moving towards viable
peace, the political process should lead to an effective government that meets the needs of the people. This included
not only elected officials, but the civil administrators that manage electrical power, water, roads, and education and
medical programmes. The international community restored infrastructure that needed immediate attention. The
next task, and one of the more difficult, was to create a functioning system in rule of law, including police and a
judiciary. Finally, the most important task was to stimulate the economy.49
Initially, loans and grants from the international community were necessary to stimulate the economy and help
rebuild damaged infrastructure. The EU took responsibility for the economic revitalization, while the OSCE took on
the responsibility for political reform. Fortunately for Kosovo, the international community responded with a large
number of grants for humanitarian assistance. Millions of dollars were spent to provide tents, stoves, blankets, and
food to get through the humanitarian crises. Infrastructure repair and long-term economic recovery were more
difficult. According to The Quest for Viable Peace, “the task of assessing and funding essential repairs was left to
international donors, which led to an uncoordinated and incomplete response.”50 In essence, the EU could have
learned from the efforts of the Marshall Plan.
The USIP study concluded that security, rule of law, governance, and economic recovery are all important tasks,
and nations must accomplish them simultaneously. The cover of the book depicts these tasks as gears. Each gear
needs to turn in relation to the other. The analogy demonstrates that when one of these fails to function or turn, then
the overall process of State rebuilding is in jeopardy or comes to a halt.
With the war and the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan progressing poorly, the debate continued about which
agency of the US Government should take the lead in guiding nation-building efforts. Should it be diplomats or the
military? Most felt that both military forces and diplomats and other government agencies had a role.
In 2005, the United States created the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization inside the
State Department. The office was responsible for coordinating efforts across the US Government when helping fragile
and failed States. The concept envisioned an active response corps made up of individuals across the various US
departments and agencies who would respond quickly to peacebuilding efforts as well as a reserve corps of people
who could deploy to conflict areas.51
Individuals from many agencies needed guidelines on how to conduct stabilization and reconstruction operations.
Under the sponsorship of the USIP, a group of experts from both the military and various parts of the US Government
came together to write Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction.52
48) Covey, Dziedzic, and Hawley, The Quest for Viable Peace.
49) Covey, Dziedzic, and Hawley, The Quest for Viable Peace, 17.
50) Stephanie Blair, Dana Eyre, Bernard Solomé, and James Wassertrom, “Forging a Viable Peace: Developing a Legitimate Political Economy”, in The
Quest for a Viable Peace, 227.
51) The Office for the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization was short-lived, and many of the ideas envisioned in 2005 never materialized. The
office changed to the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations in 2009 and currently focuses on prevention of violent conflict.
52) USIP, Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction (Washington, D.C.: Endowment of the USIP, 2009).
102
Figure 4-1
This study, like many before it, argued that failed or fragile States were a threat to international security. The
study notes, “Terrorists, transnational organized crime syndicates, local warring factions, warlords, and petty thieves
have all found common cause in states and regions in conflict.”53 The study also acknowledged that “civilians have
increasingly become the victims of violence fostered by this nexus.”54
The US efforts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan yielded a great deal of information and many lessons
about helping a nation recover from violent conflict. The USIP study recognized that America cannot conduct
stabilization and reconstruction operations alone, as “It is but one player in a complex maze of peacebuilders working
in increasingly harsh places”.55 The purpose of the study was to provide some guidance to inform decision makers,
planners, and practitioners of stabilization and reconstruction. Although the manual was mostly for an American
audience, it is relevant to and applicable for all who engage in peacebuilding.
Guiding Principles begins with several cross-cutting principles for engaging in failed and fragile States. These
include host nation ownership, political primacy, legitimacy, unity of effort, security, conflict transformation, and
regional engagement. The book describes each of these principles in some detail. Each principle is important, but
national ownership and unity of effort stand out as most important for long-term stability. According to this study,
“the end game is a locally led, sustainable peace; then host nation ownership must be developed at all times by all
actors.”56 Unity of effort is probably the hardest to achieve. The manual clearly states, “unity of effort is an important
cross-cutting principle because the U.S. government will always find itself to be just one player among numerous
local and international actors.”57
The study begins, as it should, with the desired end state for countries coming out of violent conflict. The five
categories of focus for an end state are a safe and secure environment, a functioning rule of law system, a stable
government, a functioning economy, and social programmes to meet the needs of citizens. The study discusses these
focus areas in great detail, devoting one chapter to each area. Figure 4-2 shows the relationships of each of these
end states. Embedded in each focused area are the cross-cutting principles.
53) USIP, Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction, 1-2.

57) USIP, Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction, 318.
103
Source: Recreated from USIP and US Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute, Guiding Principles for Stabilization
and Reconstruction (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2009), 2-8.
Figure 4-2
There was a significant effort from 2004 to 2010 within the US Government to create policies and programmes
to help rebuild fragile and failed States, especially States that were emerging from violent conflict. During this period,
personnel within the US military and various government agencies identified individuals to help rebuild nations. USIP
created training programmes, and many Americans were excited about new upcoming opportunities to help fragile
and failed States. In 2011, when US forces withdrew from Iraq, this emphasis began to wane. That year, the Office
of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization became the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations; it
focused its energies on conflict prevention. Rebuilding nations after war became an afterthought.
Section 4.4 Organization for Economic Co-operation and

Development
The OECD has conducted the most comprehensive work on peacebuilding. It evolved from the work of the
Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC), which was created in 1948 to administer the funds of the
Marshall Plan.
104
The Marshall Plan, formally called the European Recovery Program, aimed to alleviate suffering among the
European peoples following the Second World War and stimulate American trade with Europe. The US agreed
to facilitate European recovery by providing funds to help governments get back on their feet. Each European
government was required to submit a plan for recovery, and if approved by the European Recovery Program, the US
loaned funds to that nation. In total, the United States provided $13 billion for grants and loans between 1948 and
1951 (equivalent to $136 billion in 2018 dollars).58 When a nation paid back its loan, the money went back into the
European Recovery Program to support other nations’ programmes.59 In retrospect, many scholars and foreign policy
experts called the Marshall Plan one of America’s greatest foreign policy achievements of the twentieth century.60
In 1961, the OEEC reorganized and changed its name to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development. Its current mission “is to promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of
people around the world.”61 Overall, its 34 member countries are committed to promoting democracy and a market
economy. In that light, OECD and its member nations engage with almost all countries around the globe.
According to the US Mission to the OECD, “the [OECD] is a unique forum where the governments of 34
democracies with market economies work with each other, as well as with more than 70 non-member economies to
promote economic growth, prosperity, and sustainable development.”62 The organization’s peacebuilding work in
fragile and conflict-affected countries primarily falls under the Development Co-operation Directorate. This directorate
provides support to the Development Assistance Committee (DAC), the main organization dealing with fragile and
failed States.
In 1995, OECD began to redirect its efforts towards
helping other nations recover from conflict and achieve
some form of sustainable peace. Like other organizations in
the late 1990s, OECD recognized that violence within States
was causing more concern than conflict between States, and
the victims of intra-State wars were mostly civilians. Thus,
peacebuilding became a centrepiece of the organization’s
work. The DAC published its first study on peacebuilding in
1996. The study, Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution
of Development Co-operation, redirected the OECD towards

helping other nations prevent deadly conflicts and recover
from the horrors of war.63

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon delivers a keynote
In 1997, OECD published its study DAC Guidelines on
address to Ambassadors and staff of the OECD at
Conflict, Peace and Development Co-operation, a scholarly OECD headquarters in Paris. 28 April 2015. UN Photo
analysis of conflict prevention and peacebuilding, in 1997. 64 #629784 by Mark Garten.
The study drew heavily on the ideas from Johan Galtung’s
work and Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali’s An Agenda
58) Gerard Bossuat, “The Marshall Plan History and Legacy”, in The Marshall Plan: Lessons Learned for the 21st Century, eds. Eliot Sorel and Pier Carlo
Padoan (Paris: OECD, 2008), 13.
59) Bertrand Collomb, “Lessons Learned from the Marshall Plan: A Corporate Experience”, in The Marshall Plan.
60) Paul C. Light, “Governments Greatest Achievements of the Past Half Century”, Brookings Institute Paper, December 2000; R. Nicholas Burns,
“Commemorating the 60th Anniversary of the Marshall Plan”, in The Marshall Plan.
61) OECD, “Our mission”, accessed 18 September 2018. Available from: <http://www.oecd.org/about/>.
62) US Mission to the OECD, “What is the OECD?”, accessed 18 September 2018. Available from: <https://usoecd.usmission.gov/our-relationship/about-
the-oecd/what-is-the-oecd/>.
63) OECD, Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution of Development Co-operation (Paris: OECD, 1996).
64) OECD, DAC Guidelines on Conflict, Peace and Development Co-operation (Paris: OECD, 1997).
105
for Peace. In fact, this study reads like a textbook on conflict analysis
and resolution. In its view, early identification of States in conflict OECD Countries »
and programmes for conflict prevention was a high priority for the
Australia
international community. The study recognized the valuable contributions
Austria
that the United Nations, regional organizations, and NGOs can make
Belgium
to help nations recover from violent conflict. According to the study,
Canada
“Peacebuilding involves both long-term preventive measures and more
Chile
immediate responses before, during, and after conflict.”65
Czech Republic
The 1997 OECD study focused on “priority areas of support” when
Denmark
States do fail.66 These include restoring internal security and rule of law,
Estonia
legitimizing State institutions, fostering the re-emergence of civil society,
Finland
improving food security and social services, and building administrative
France
capacity. The OECD refined these ideas over the next several years.
Germany
In 1999, the development ministers of Germany, the Netherlands,
Greece
Norway, and the United Kingdom, all of which are members of OECD,
Hungary
met at the Utstein Abbey in Norway to study ideas on peacebuilding.
Iceland
Influential groups of practitioners, mostly from OECD countries, presented
Ireland
at the conference. The assembled ministers evaluated 336 peacebuilding
Israel
projects and conducted a survey on peacebuilding. Additionally, each of
Italy
the four governments presented their own ideas on peacebuilding.
Japan
In 2004, peacebuilding scholar Dan Smith compiled all the results in
Luxembourg
a study titled Toward a Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding: Getting
Mexico
Their Act Together, more commonly known as the “Joint Utstein Study
Netherlands
on Peacebuilding”.67 The study attributed the ideas of peacebuilding to An
New Zealand
Agenda for Peace and its further refinement by the Brahimi Report and the
Norway
Security Council President’s 2001 statement on peacebuilding. The study
rejected Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali’s notion that peacebuilding Poland
should occur only in post-conflict settings. Instead, the Utstein Study Portugal
accepted a new view on peacebuilding as prescribed by the Security Republic of Korea

Council in 2001: “Peacebuilding activities are designed to contribute to Slovakia
ending or avoiding armed conflict and may be carried out during armed Slovenia
conflict, in its wake, or as an attempt to prevent an anticipated armed Spain
conflict from starting.”68 Smith concluded that the Utstein Group classified Sweden
peacebuilding activities into four categories: Switzerland
1. To provide security; Turkey
2. To establish the socioeconomic foundations of long-term peace; United Kingdom

United States
3. To establish political frameworks; and
4. To generate reconciliation.
65) OECD, DAC Guidelines on Conflict, Peace and Development Co-operation, 37.
66) OECD, DAC Guidelines on Conflict, Peace and Development Co-operation.
67) Dan Smith, Toward a Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding: Getting Their Act Together: Overview of the Joint Utstein Study of Peacebuilding (Oslo,
Norway: Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, April 2004).
68) Smith, Toward a Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding, 20.
106
Source: Adapted from Dan Smith, Towards a Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding.
Figure 4-3
Smith called this the “Peacebuilding Palette”, but it later became known as the “Utstein Palette” (see Figure 4-3).
The palette was an analogy, as the designer of a peacebuilding framework or strategy is much like a painter.
First, the strategists must decide whether they are helping a nation prevent conflict or recover from conflict. This
is much like deciding whether to paint a portrait or a landscape. The strategist will then consider various aspects of
help. This is similar to selecting the right colours of paint from an artist’s palette.
After reviewing the reports from the four countries and analysing more than 300 peacebuilding projects,
Smith concluded that there was a glaring shortcoming in these peacebuilding activities. The “strategic deficient”
in peacebuilding activities, according to Smith, was that they did not connect to an overall strategic plan for the
affected country. Afghanistan was considered the prime example of a lack of any strategic connections.69 Other
countries that submitted reports to the Utstein Study reached similar conclusions.
Strategic planning is a critical piece of peacebuilding. Smith stated, “in some cases, though a peacebuilding
strategy is not written down, it is in the heads of key actors — desk officers, officials on the ground, some lead
NGO and [intergovernmental organization] actors.”70 Smith went on to say that many NGOs conduct peacebuilding
activities, but due to the short tenure of many NGO professionals, they are not always aware of a strategic vision.
Their short six-month efforts are difficult to integrate into an overall plan.
69) Smith, Toward a Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding.

70) Smith, Toward a Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding, 58.
107
OECD continued its analysis and expression of ideas on peacebuilding. OECD accepted the Utstein Study as a
good starting point, and it heeded the recommendations of the report on creating a strategic framework. In 2007,
the DAC developed the “Principles of Good International Engagement in Fragile States”. These principles recognize
that States emerging from bad governance, extreme humanitarian crises, or violence and civil wars must have
programmes that do no harm, focus on State-building, and require practical coordination among international actors.
They also recognize that while the international community can help fragile and failing States, the solution must
come from within — from their own leadership and people.
Two OECD reports provide a good overview of peacebuilding and how to develop a strategic framework for
planning, undertaking, and evaluating peacebuilding. The OECD report “Concepts and dilemmas of State building in
fragile situations” begins with a claim that State-building and nation-building are not synonymous.71 Nation-building
activities do more than simply rebuild State systems; they also help to forge a national identity. OECD policies focus
on State-building, while nation-building is the responsibility of local leaders. The report goes on to describe a “social
contract” between the people and the State. The social contract is a method for States to meet the expectations
of the people. States provide services, such as security, education, health care, and economic policies, while the
citizens pay taxes and accept the State’s monopoly on the use of force. The report concludes, “A stable State must
effectively deliver services that match a citizen’s expectation; however, it must be able to manage changes in those
expectations and changes that arise either from an increase or decrease in resources”.72
The 2008 OECD report Guidance on Evaluating Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Activities provides some
insight on developing a strategic framework.73 The chart in Figure 4-4, drawn from Dan Smith’s peacebuilding palette,
articulates the OECD thinking. The model, however, is only a tool for evaluating peacebuilding activities.
The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness »

• “Ownership: Developing countries set their own strategies for poverty
reduction, improve their institutions and tackle corruption.
• Alignment: Donor countries align behind these objectives and use local

systems.
• Harmonisation: Donor countries coordinate, simplify procedures and share

information to avoid duplication.
• Results: Developing countries and donors shift focus to development results

and results get measured.
• Mutual accountability: Donors and partners are accountable for development

results.”ii
ii) OECD, “Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action”, accessed 29 October 2018. Available from: <http://www.oecd.org/dac/
effectiveness/parisdeclarationandaccraagendaforaction.htm>.
71) OECD, “Concepts and dilemmas of State building in fragile situations: From fragility to resistance”, OECD Journal on Development, vol. 9, No. 3, 17
April 2009.
72) OECD, “Concepts and dilemmas of State building in fragile situations”, 22.
73) OECD/DAC, Guidance on Evaluating Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Activities (Paris: OECD, 2008).
108
Guidance acknowledges that no two peacebuilding efforts are the same, so no blueprint works in every situation.
The report is not intended to be a planning tool, but rather a tool for evaluating the planning. The 1997 DAC Guidelines
include the best OECD planning guidance. Initially, coordination is required among the various international actors
to agree on shared objectives. Finding these objectives requires a detailed situational analysis, a risk assessment, a
determination of the goals, and then a definition of success.74 Overall, the OECD documents do not provide a good
approach towards creating a strategic framework. The focus of this report is to provide advice on how to evaluate
peacebuilding, an important part of the overall process.
Since 2008, the DAC has worked with the United Nations to create and support an international dialogue on
peacebuilding and State-building. Its purpose is to integrate peacebuilding in fragile States in a coordinated fashion.
The first such meeting took place in Rome in 2003, and the second occurred in Paris in 2005. The Paris conference
resulted in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. The dialogue on peacebuilding and State-building continued
with the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness. This final conference in Busan, Republic of Korea, ran from
29 November to 1 December 2011. The meeting brought together more than 3,000 participants from more than 160
countries, 30 international organizations, and 300 civil society organizations.75 The conference resulted in the Busan
Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation. As of 2018, 112 countries have signed the Busan Partnership
and support its approach to development.
The Busan Partnership begins with a profound statement: “The world stands at a critical juncture in global
development. Poverty and inequality remain the central challenge.”76 It goes on to say, “the Declaration identifies
that promoting human rights, democracy and good governance are an integral part of our development efforts.
Nowhere are our development goals more urgent than in fragile and conflict-affected states.”77 The MDGs were
closely tied to this agreement. The Declaration clearly articulated that fragile States need the most help in achieving
the Sustainable Development Goals, and it solidified the Paris Declaration.
Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Framework
Socioeconomic Good Reform of Culture of

Governance Justice and Justice, Truth,
Development Security Institutions and Reconciliation
• Balanced physical • Civil society development • Security system • Dialogue among conflicting
reconstruction • Freedom of expression, (police, military, intelligence) groups
• Repatriation and association, etc. • Small arms and light • Enhancing nonviolent dispute
reintegration of the displaced • Media development weapons resolution systems
• Sound and equitable • Power-sharing • Nonviolent • Prejudice reduction or
economic management accompaniment diversity training
• Participatory processes,
• Equitable access to services access • Community policing • Trauma healing
• Sustainable use of and • Democratization • Peacekeeping • Capacity-building and
equitable access to natural and electoral processes training in conflict resolution
• Nonviolent observers
resources
• Transparency and • Disarmament, • Peace education
• Equitable and balanced accountability demobilization, and • Transitional justice processes
poverty reduction
• Anti-corruption reintegration of combatants
• War crimes trials
• Gender equality
• Human rights protection • Demining
• Social inclusion projects
• Rule of law
Figure 4-4
74) OECD/DAV, DAC Guidelines on Conflict, Peace and Development Co-Operation (Paris: OECD, 1997).
75) The term “civil society organizations” is slightly broader than “NGOs”, as it includes NGOs and private and public organizations that support
development programmes. Busan High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness: Proceedings, 29 November-1 December 2011, 10.
76) “Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation”, Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, Busan, Republic of Korea, 29 November-1
December 2011.
77) “Busan Partnership”, 2011.
109
Overall, OECD focuses on helping all nations that request support, which, in turn, advances the interests of
its member countries. There is a clear focus on fragile States, but OECD peacebuilding efforts ultimately focus on
development. In 2013, OECD countries provided about $102 billion in aid collectively. All of these funds were closely
tied to the MDGs.78
In June 2015, OECD published States of Fragility 2015. The report specifically looks at the 50 nations on OECD’s
most fragile States list. These 50 fragile nations are being left behind in achieving the MDGs. This group of nations is
home to the 43 per cent of the global population who live on less than $1.25 per day. They have the highest infant
mortality rates and the highest unemployment.79 More disconcerting is the unequal distribution of development
funds; many of the fragile nations are left out. If the current trend continues, these fragile nations will continue to
fall below the standards set by the new Sustainable Development Goals. The report further claims that conflict has a
debilitating effect. When violence breaks out, “it can reverse national development gains by more than 20 years.”80
States of Fragility 2015 focuses on the future and helping fragile States. With all the other agreements on
development in place (e.g. Busan Partnership, Sustainable Development Goals), many programmes fail to take into
account the State’s role in conflict prevention and recovery and how more developed nations of the world can help
fragile States — in essence, peacebuilding. The OECD report proposed a working model for assessing State fragility.
These so-called “clusters” are violence; access to justice for all; effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions;
economic inclusion and stability; and capacities to prevent and adapt to social, economic, and environmental shocks
and disasters (called “resilience” in Figure 4-5).
The DAC called for a renewed focus on fragile States and a better distribution of development funds from the
more developed nations of the world. Only time will tell whether this will be a continued effort. Fragile and failing
States become sources of unrest and violence beyond their own borders. The spillover effects of one nation in conflict
can spread to neighbouring countries and become breeding grounds for international terrorism and a source of
refugees.
Source: OECD, States of Fragility 2015: Meeting Post-2015 Ambitions (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2015), 20.
Figure 4-5
78) OECD, 2014 Global Outlook on Aid: Results of the 2014 DAC Survey on Donors’ Forward Spending Plans and Prospects for Improving Aid Predictability
(Paris: OECD, 2014), 8.
79) OECD/DAC, States of Fragility 2015: Meeting Post-2015 Ambitions (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2015), 13.
80) OECD, States of Fragility 2015, 9.
110
Section 4.5 Alliance for Peacebuilding

At the turn of the twenty-first century, a small cluster of organizations and individuals began to meet and discuss
the challenges of resolving conflicts in fragile and failed States. A $1 million grant funded the Alliance for International
Conflict Prevention and Resolution. In 2006, the organization changed its name to the Alliance for Peacebuilding
(AfP). It has held a number of conferences where many individuals and organizations carefully studied and discussed
the field of peacebuilding. Today, AfP “is a membership network of over 100 organizations”, and it “[brings] together
coalitions in key areas of strategy and policy to elevate the entire peacebuilding field, tackling issues too large
for any one organization to address alone.”81 The organization promotes the study of peacebuilding around the
globe, and many of its efforts focus on development, relief, human rights, democracy, SSR, and other peacebuilding
programmes. AfP helps organizations understand the complex field of peacebuilding and conflict resolution.
AfP stresses non-violent methods for achieving peacebuilding objectives, but it works closely with military
organizations to help define the security environment. It acknowledges that military intervention is sometimes
necessary to establish the conditions for effective peacekeeping.
AfP holds annual conferences with its members to continue to advance the field. The organization also meets
regularly with other organizations to discuss the field of peacebuilding. Through a series of conferences with the
Peacebuilding Evaluation Project (PEP), AfP developed a report on peacebuilding in cooperation with USIP called
Starting on the Same Page: A Lessons Report from the Peacebuilding Evaluation Project.82 The report acknowledged
that peacebuilders enter “chaotic, complex and ambiguous situations”.83 It also states that the field of peacebuilding
has come a long way since the ideas first emerged in the 1990s; however, there is frustration among peacebuilders.
The frustration stems from limited budgets for those carrying out peacebuilding activities. Funders expect
concrete results, and analysts struggle to find a link between peacebuilding projects and the overall success of these
efforts. As a result, several myths associated with peacebuilding emerged that demanded further discussion:
1. Peacebuilding’s impact is particularly difficult to measure due to the complex dynamics of conflict situations.
2. Staff in country offices must be trained social scientists.
3. The primary purpose of evaluations is to highlight flaws and faults and assess when a programme is a
success or failure.
4. The expectation is that nearly all projects will be successful.
5. Countervailing forces against good evaluation practices are too entrenched to change.84
The report goes on to discuss these five myths and describes how to solve them. Of the first myth, it says, “it
is undeniably true that peacebuilders operate in chaotic and quickly changing situations in which human lives are
at stake.”85 The way to counter this myth is to develop a field of professionals who work together in peacebuilding
efforts. Regarding the second myth, peacebuilders do not need to be social scientists, but rather must be a group of
professionals that work together and make assessments of the effectiveness of peacebuilding activities. The answer
to the third myth is not to focus on the successes or failures, but rather to use peacebuilding assessments to alter
or change the course of intervention.
81) AfP, “About AfP”, accessed 19 September 2018. Available from: <https://allianceforpeacebuilding.org/about-us/>.
82) Melanie Kawano-Chio, Starting on the Same Page: A Lesson Report from the Peacebuilding Evaluation Project (Washington, D.C.: Alliance for
Peacebuilding, 2011), 7.
83) Kawano-Chio, Starting on the Same Page: A Lesson Report from the Peacebuilding Evaluation Project.
84) Kawano-Chio, Starting on the Same Page: A Lesson Report from the Peacebuilding Evaluation Project, 9.
85) Kawano-Chio, Starting on the Same Page: A Lesson Report from the Peacebuilding Evaluation Project, 10.
111
The fourth myth is more realistic. Not all peacebuilding programmes will be successful; some will certainly fail. The
goal is to keep peacebuilding projects and efforts in line with the overall goal of developing a sustainable peace and a
sustainable society. If programmes cause dependency, which requires continuation of the programme for it to be effective,
perhaps the aim of the programme is wrong. Peacebuilders must work to hand off programmes to the local society. This
might take five or 10 years, but the overall goal is to work oneself out of a job. Countering the last myth requires overall
leadership. Initially, this leadership might come from an external source, such as an SRSG, but programmes eventually
need local leadership. Another aspect is that NGOs and other international organizations see their programmes as a
justification for their very existence. It is hard to change this mindset, but change is part of every peacebuilding effort.
The bottom line is that the field of professional peacebuilders needs to focus its energies on programmes that
help a nation, not just the programme itself. This requires careful analysis, leadership, and a keen eye on the overall
goal of helping the people to help themselves.
In 2012, AfP published Peacebuilding 2.0: Mapping the Boundaries of an Expanded Field. AfP conducted two
surveys, one among its members and another reaching out beyond its membership. The group surveyed various
international organizations, governmental actors, academics, and many NGOs. In the NGO category, 119 organizations
participated in the survey, the majority of which were not members of AfP. The survey questions helped AfP develop
several far-reaching recommendations.
The report began with a review of peacebuilding. The field of peacebuilding has expanded considerably since
the early 1990s. Currently, the field is quite diverse, but it has been only partially successful in ending or preventing
violent conflict. According to AfP, “While the field has grown exponentially in both impact and influence, it lacks the
cohesion to operate most effectively in fragile, chaotic zones of conflict around the world.”86
The essence of the report is that the professional field of peacebuilding needs to redefine itself. According to AfP:
“The time is ripe for peacebuilding to evolve from Peacebuilding

1.0 – a dynamic yet disconnected series of peacebuilding
activities across a broad spectrum of sectors to Peacebuilding
2.0, a more unified field that harnesses the collective energy of
all peacebuilding interventions and creates a joint impact that
leads to more stable, resilient societies.”87
AfP stresses that the field of peacebuilding should be a profession with a core of trained individuals with a
“conflict-sensitive” lens. Peacebuilding 2.0 provides another view of peacebuilding — that the field should integrate
all its activities. Figure 4-6 outlines the various disciplines to include in the field of peacebuilding. Peacebuilding is a
diverse field of practice, including education, food security, rule of law, women and children, development, genocide
prevention, and a host of other focused efforts.
AfP has expanded the field of peacebuilding to an almost unmanageable level. Certainly, all of these disciplines
can have a role in peacebuilding but creating a field of professionals to work in each of these areas is difficult,
especially since many NGOs hire young people with altruistic beliefs. The good news is the field of peacebuilding
is growing and expanding, and many academic institutions have programmes devoted to it. AfP acknowledges
this, saying, “peacebuilding has a deep and passionate following among students at the high school and college
levels. Students can now major in peace studies at the undergraduate level and the certificate levels, and graduate
programmes in peace studies are proliferating.”88
86) AfP, Peacebuilding 2.0: Mapping the Boundaries of an Expanding Field (Washington, D.C.: Alliance for Peacebuilding, 2012), 8.
87) AfP, Peacebuilding 2.0, 11.
112
Source: AfP, “What is Peacebuilding?”, 2013. Available from: <https://allianceforpeacebuilding.org/what-is-peacebuilding/>.
Figure 4-6
Section 4.6 Final Discussion

Peacebuilding emerged onto the world stage in 1992 when Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali introduced the term
in An Agenda for Peace. It gained momentum when the Secretary-General republished his ideas in a Supplement to
an Agenda for Peace. Conflict resolution in real-world settings in Bosnia (1995–2000), Timor-Leste (1999–2003),
Kosovo (1999–2010), Liberia (1999–2010), and Sierra Leone (1999–2008) helped define the field. The US-led wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq also had an impact on the field. Scholars like Johan Galtung, John Paul Lederach, Dennis
Sandole, and various national and international organizations contributed to the advancement of ideas in the field.
The World Bank was formed to help rebuild countries after the Second World War. Its ideas on development
gradually began to form the basis for peacebuilding studies. In the late 1990s, the World Bank began to devote a
tremendous amount of energy and resources to help fragile and failing States.
Some confusion remains in the field of peacebuilding. Even the definition of “peacebuilding” is in flux. Some
organizations want a rigid definition of peacebuilding, while others desire a loose definition that can include a wide
113
range of activities.89 Regardless of the definition, they all converge “on the idea that peacebuilding is a set of long-
term endeavors undertaken continuously through multiple stages of conflict (before, during, and after) and involving
collaboration at several levels of society”.90
The 2003 US invasion of Iraq and the difficulties the US military experienced in efforts to rebuild that country led
to a number of studies. Terms like “post-conflict reconstruction”, “stability operations”, and “peacebuilding” began to
merge into a framework of ideas. A careful analysis of these various concepts of peacebuilding allows one to draw
some profound conclusions. Security, governance, economic reconstruction, rule of law, and humanitarian assistance
stand out as common denominators in most studies.
Security is common to all studies. Without security, none of the other programmes can take root or even begin.
This is why peacekeeping and peacebuilding are inextricably linked. Peacekeepers (soldiers) impose some form
of security so civilians can be free to do their work. The US military learned this lesson in Iraq. Soldiers cannot
and should not be the basis for helping a country rebuild its institutions. This is a job for civilians. Soldiers (or
peacekeepers) can help, however. That is the basis of the United Nations efforts for a New Horizon for peacekeeping.
Governance is the other factor common to most studies. Some studies include democratization in their analysis
and some combine governance with civil administration. The bottom line is that governance is a process that must
be based on the local people’s vision of how they want their country governed. External peacebuilders can help
with ideas, but governance should be for the people and by the people. James Dobbins was mostly right in that
governance should be built from the lower level to the higher level — this is how local leaders emerge. As for civil
administration, these programmes need to begin right away. Schools, medical clinics, licenses, trash collection,
roads, electrical systems, and ports all need to operate in order for a country to move forward from a post-conflict
setting. Civil administration cannot and should not wait for elected officials to begin their work.
Another key aspect of peacebuilding is rule of law. Countries need police and judicial systems to manage crime
and corruption. For rule of law to function effectively, countries need some form of laws. Usually, local laws remain
relatively unchanged until the political process changes them.
Humanitarian assistance and social well-being are linked. When countries fail, they often need emergency relief
at the outset. This might include food, water, shelter, medical assistance, and sanitation assistance. As the crisis
subsides, international efforts need to change from humanitarian assistance to social well-being. The basic needs
are still necessary, but efforts must shift towards helping that society provide its own necessities. In this light,
farmers need to grow food, medical clinics should be locally run, and the civil administration can provide water and
sanitation. This shift takes time, but for peacebuilders, combining humanitarian assistance with social well-being is
a good way to focus on the problem.
The long-term goal of any aspect of peacebuilding is economic recovery. This effort might take more time than
other programmes. Early on, small businesses should begin to operate. Vendors selling their wares in roadside
markets are the beginning of economic recovery. To move beyond rudimentary economic recovery requires enormous
amounts of money to build roads, electrical systems, ports, and buildings. This is where the World Bank can have
an impact.
Table 4-1 summarizes many of the studies in this lesson. Future peacebuilders must consider these categories
of effort and carefully figure them into any peacebuilding effort. No two peacebuilding efforts are the same. Each will

114
have its unique requirements for either steering a country away from violent conflict or rebuilding the society after
conflict. Peacebuilders need to keep an open mind and conduct a thorough analysis of the requirements to move a
country forward.
The OECD concluded that peacebuilding could be conducted either to prevent deadly conflict or to rebuild a
society after conflict. This is the most current trend within the peacebuilding community. As James Dobbins stated,
it is less costly to prevent conflict than to rebuild a society after conflict.
The work of AfP and comments by USIP clearly show that unity of effort among all peacebuilders is essential.
There must be a strategic plan of some sort that guides all who participate in peacebuilding. Whether peacebuilders
come from an international organization, an NGO, a single nation sponsoring projects, or a business striving to
create economic opportunity, all must work with the local population to make a country self-sustainable. The end
goal is not to make a poor country prosperous, but rather to enable a developing country to manage its own affairs
peacefully and constructively.
115
End-of-Lesson Quiz »
1. TRUE or FALSE: No two peacebuilding 5. TRUE or FALSE: Prior to the invasion

efforts are the same. of Iraq in 2003, the US military had
an effective and established plan for
A. True
rebuilding the country.
B. False
A. True
2. The World Bank study Post-conflict B. False
Reconstruction claimed that any
response to post-conflict peacebuilding 6. Which American organizations produced
would fall into four broad areas. They studies on nation-building after the
are _____. failures in Iraq in 2003–2008?
A. effective justice system, good governance, A. The RAND Corporation
international aid, and UN funding B. Center for Strategic and International
B. political-diplomatic, security, emergency Studies (CSIS)
relief, and reconstruction development C. US Institute of Peace (USIP)
C. shelter, food, water, and health care D. All of the above
D. financial, security, justice, and governance

7. Which of the following is NOT one of
3. The Marshall Plan was created to _____. the five myths about peacebuilding
according to the Alliance for
A. help the UN create effective programmes for Peacebuilding (AfP)?
conflict resolution
A. It is difficult to measure the success of
B. help Japan recover from the Second World
peacebuilding efforts
War
B. Peacebuilding can never fully accomplish the
C. help Germany recover from the First World
goals it sets out to achieve
War
C. The expectation is that nearly all projects
D. help Europe recover from the Second World
will be successful
War
D. Countervailing forces against good
evaluation practices are too entrenched to
4. Which of the following is NOT an
institution of the World Bank? change
A. International Bank for Reconstruction and

8. According to the Center for Strategic
Development (IBRD) and International Studies (CSIS) and
B. International Finance Corporation (IFC) the RAND Corporation, _____ is the best
C. Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency example of failed State management.
(MIGA) A. Bosnia-Herzegovina
D. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and B. Somalia
Development (OECD) C. Kosovo
D. Sierra Leone
Answer Key provided on the next page.
116
End-of-Lesson Quiz »
9. US Ambassador James Dobbins 10. The Alliance for Peacebuilding’s (AfP)

recommended a ratio of _____ to help a Peacebuilding 2.0 stresses that the field
failed State recover from war. of peacebuilding should _____ all its
activities.
A. one solider per 1,000 local inhabitants
B. 10 soldiers per 1,000 inhabitants A. contract
C. 50 soldiers per 1,000 inhabitants B. disperse
D. one soldier per 1 million habitants C. integrate

D. scale down
Answer Key »
1. A
2. B
3. D
4. D
5. B
6. D
7. B
8. C
9. B
10. C
117

Lesson 4 - The Evolution of Ideas For Peacebuilding

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lesson 4 - The Evolution of Ideas For Peacebuilding

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEACEBUILDING

The United Nations was one

UN Photo #782277 by Harandane Dicko.

In this lesson » Lesson Objectives »

building (Peacebuilding) strategy.

Co-operation and Development peacebuilding efforts.

Section 4.5 Alliance for Peacebuilding

Section 4.6 Final Discussion

PEACE OPERATIONS TRAINING INSTITUTE

Section 4.1 Global Overview

think about peacebuilding and how to bridge the gap between

peacekeeping and post-conflict peacebuilding. Secretary-

General Boutros-Ghali stimulated the world to consider and

comprehend the various aspects of peacebuilding. At the

time, peacebuilding was a concept most familiar to NGOs.

Scholars, like the American John Paul Lederach, began talking

and writing earnestly about peacebuilding in the late 1990s.

By the turn of the twenty-first century, others picked up the

mantle and began espousing the value of peacebuilding.

peacebuilding. Its annual conferences help to build a field of professional practitioners.

networks with many organizations.

Table 4-1: Various Approaches to Peacebuilding

Secretary-General António Guterres (right)

Section 4.2 The World Bank on Peacebuilding

restoration of economies destroyed or disrupted by war”.1

reconstruction and long-term development.5

amounted to just over $150 million.

the United Nations.

Countries in Europe and Central Asia were the largest borrowers.

national governments, regional organizations, NGOs, think tanks, and universities.

The Institutions of the World Bank Group »

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) lends to governments of

International Development Association (IDA) provides interest-free loans and grants to

International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) provides

having a positive impact.

Section 4.3 American Views on Nation-building (Peacebuilding)

13) World Bank, World Development Report 2011.

rebuild Europe after the war.14

conducted the peacebuilding activities.

functioning economy, or creating an effective Iraqi governing body.

Exactly two months after the terrorist attacks

studies on this topic.

RAND studies on nation-building

command of General Lucius Clay.19

States faced in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

military units) resulted in fewer civilian and military casualties.21

challenge of getting the international community to contribute towards nation-building efforts.25

20) Dobbins et al., America’s Role in Nation-Building, 150.

Additional RAND studies on nation-building

growth in societies emerging from conflict.”29

Dobbins also acknowledged the valuable impact of military peacekeeping

a wide array of civilians did the work of establishing sustainable peace.

Security is absolutely necessary to nation-building, and the military is the

experience, is the best organization in the international system to pursue

the task of nation-building (peacebuilding).30

building. Two new categories emerged — democratization and development.

According to Dobbins, democratization is different from governance: “A

needs a government immediately if there is to be any law enforcement,

education, or public health care.”31 His category of governance was

essentially identical to other studies that recommended the creation of a

bureaucratic functions (civil administration) of a State. The international

community, when properly organized, can help provide the functions of