One might ask what is the difference? If the word “nation”
is related to “natal” and “nativity” and national identity, then
associate it with “motherhood.” In contrast, the functions of
the “state” are really the functions of government, which can be
associated with the word “patria,” as in “patriotism” and “fa-
therhood.” While outsiders cannot make the people of another
country self-identify as members of one nation, what can be
done is help a foreign government to build the institutions of
government and statehood. To wit, the USG can construct
the physical building of the country’s Ministry of Finance, for
example, and train and mentor the Finance Minister and his or
her staff on their functions, responsibilities, and accountability.
However, infusing a sense of nationality upon the Ministry staff
will not be a successful strategy.
SAR
STABILIZATION
ASSISTANCE REVIEW
A FRAMEWORK FOR MAXIMIZING THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF U.S. GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO
STABILIZE CONFLICT-
AFFECTED AREAS
B
Why does this distinction matter? It matters because if Wash-
ington is clear about its objectives, and the limits on what it can
accomplish, it is likely to receive greater buy-in and acceptance
from the U.S. body politic, as well as from international stake-
holders. State building is far more likely to succeed with a poli-
cy and implementation strategies that are actually achievable.
Indeed, in PKSOI’s own Handbook for Military Support to
Governance, Elections, and Media, the definition for State
building or reconstruction is:
2018
the effort to build or rebuild the institutions of a weak,
post-conflict, or failing state. State building may be undertak-
en by external governments and organizations, for example
following a military intervention or peacekeeping operation.
In a post-conflict environment, state building ideally involves
external and internal participants constructively engaged in a
process that results in political understandings on the form of
government, prioritization and initiation of work to restore
core government functions, and the provision of government
services in response to public expectations. In this context, the
term state building is preferable to ‘nation building,’ since it
focuses on institutions rather than identity (a nation).
We define stabilization as a political endeavor involving an
integrated civilian-military process to create conditions where
locally legitimate authorities and systems can peaceably man-
age conflict and prevent a resurgence of violence. Transitional
in nature, stabilization may include efforts to establish civil
security, provide access to dispute resolution, deliver targeted
basic services, and establish a foundation for the return of dis-
placed people and longer-term development. . . . Stabilization
starts to set the conditions for building legitimate societal and
governing institutions.
It Is All about the Legitimacy—and Reach—of Host-Nation
Governance
Lots of ink has been spilled about post-conflict stabilization
efforts, and about state-building versus nation-building since
our interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and about enhancing
operational effectiveness. One important development in this
regard was the State Department-led drafting of the “Stabiliza-
tion Assistance Review” (SAR) in 2017 and 2018. Signed per-
sonally by the Secretaries of State and Defense and the USAID
Administrator as a new interagency framework for stability
operations going forward, These three agencies stated:
As the SAR was drafted, the Departments of State and Defense
and USAID factored in many lessons learned from studying
fragile and conflict-affected states across the globe to put to-
gether policies and best practices going forward to mitigate or
even prevent conflict. To me, the key phrases in the above defi-
nition are: “create conditions [for] . . . locally legitimate author-
ities” and “set the conditions for building legitimate societal and
governing institutions.” Working with international Provincial
Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) across Afghanistan in 2007-
2008, I learned that it is all about enabling host nation good
governance. I realized that “it’s not about us,” other than how
15