Violent Conflicts, Conflict Prevention and Nation-building – Terminology and Political Concepts

Jochen Hippler

A large number of foreign policy discussions since the end of the East-West conflict have been determined by a series of regional conflicts – in addition to the dissolution and restructuring processes in the former Eastern bloc. Those that have stood out most include Iraq (Gulf War 1991, Iraq War 2003), Somalia, the wars during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia (particularly in Bosnia and Kosovo), Afghanistan, plus the wars and violent excesses in Africa (Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, Liberia and others). The perspective had been shifting since the early 1990s because it was no longer possible to squeeze each conflict into the simple schema of the Cold War. The internal causes of conflict came more to the fore, with new modes appearing, such as culturalistic interpretations (clash of civilisations) or kneejerk ascriptions to 'ethnic' causes. In addition to other concepts – for example that of failed states – the term 'nation-building' emerged more and more in the Anglo-Saxon debate, in particular. This was noticeable in the political discussion, e.g. in the case of former US Secretary of State Alexander Haig and UN Secretary-General BoutrosGhali (Haig 1994; UN Chronicle 1994), in the media, e.g. Newsweek and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ 1994; Newsweek 1994), as well as in scientific analysis, e.g. through the work of Eriksen (1993) and Lenhart (1992). At the beginning, there was frequent discussion concerning the processes and problems of nation-building or its failure, though the term itself was avoided. In the meantime, the term has been used more and more, but hardly explained or addressed in theoretical terms.

In the second half of the 1990s, the term 'nation-building' gained acceptance on a broad front and became a natural part of both the political and scientific debate. The experience of the international community in places like Somalia, the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq made it clear that breakdown of the state and the fragmentation of societies can trigger violent conflicts or make them insoluble. Such situations can, in the longer term, cause economic, social and political development to fail, give rise to major humanitarian disasters, destabilise entire regions and even turn them into sources of transnational terrorism – also generally affecting distant countries and calling Western political objectives into question. It is especially in these contexts that nation-building is discussed at international level: either as a preventive political option to avoid the breakup of the state and social fragmentation, as an alternative to military conflict management, as part of military interventions or as an element of post-conflict policies. Accordingly, a policy of nation-building constitutes a hinge between foreign, development and military policy for the purpose of preventing or managing violent conflicts, achieving local and regional stability, and facilitating development.

Nation-building is, however, neither easy nor without problems. The chances of achieving this objective from the outside are assessed very differently and often with scepticism; the paths and instruments to success are frequently unclear and it is questionable in many instances whether external players will be able to stay the course long enough in terms of time and financial commitment. External nationbuilding can drag outside players into local power struggles from which they find it very difficult to extricate themselves. Questions of legality are also difficult to answer in many cases because, although the principle of non-interference under the UN Charter is often ignored, it does still exist – and for good reason. Finally, it is frequently not clear what nation-building is actually supposed to mean.

NATION-BUILDING: EARLIER DISCUSSIONS

'Nation-building' is an old term that has already flourished and declined. Nation-building was a key concept of foreign, security and development policy in the 1950s and 1960s, in particular. At that time, it was closely related to the modernisation theories fashionable during those years, which viewed the development process in the Third World in terms of catching up with Western models. Societies were to be 'modernised', that is their structures adapted to the industrialised countries through 'traditional' or 'tribal' societies being turned into 'modern' nation-states, with the European model implicitly or explicitly intended as the goal.

Nationality and the nation-state were fundamental categories, with economic and political development regarded as promising success only in this context. In Rivkin's words (1969:156) relating to Africa:

Nation-building and economic development ... are twin goals and intimately related tasks, sharing many of the same problems, confronting many of the same challenges, and interrelating at many levels of public policy and practice.

Economic development was perceived to imply a market economy, and political development a nation-state. Political development as a component of or prerequisite for economic development was thus regarded above all as a nation-building process. The two together, that is accomplishment of the market mechanism and the nation-state, were regarded as being closely linked and as...