canada’s 3d approach: coherence, confusion or conspiracy?
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Canada’s 3D approach: Coherence, confusion or conspiracy?](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649e855503460f94b86f20/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Canada’s 3D approach:
Coherence, confusion or conspiracy?
![Page 2: Canada’s 3D approach: Coherence, confusion or conspiracy?](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649e855503460f94b86f20/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
![Page 3: Canada’s 3D approach: Coherence, confusion or conspiracy?](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649e855503460f94b86f20/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Introduction
Deconstructing “failed states” 3D approaches (Development, Diplomacy,
Defense) Sudan Afghanistan
Conclusions
![Page 4: Canada’s 3D approach: Coherence, confusion or conspiracy?](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649e855503460f94b86f20/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
“Failed States”
1. Problem looking for a solution “failure” of states sets up governance vacuum “alignment” and “local “ownership” therefore don’t
apply “democracy and local ownership are an end not a
means” (DFAIT discussion paper) 3D approaches: “harmonizing” development
strategies with military strategies
![Page 5: Canada’s 3D approach: Coherence, confusion or conspiracy?](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649e855503460f94b86f20/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
“Failed States” (cont’d)
2. Locus of “failure” is state itself• Ignores globalization and interconnectivity• In fact, international community is inherently
involved• SAPs, aid regime• Arms trade• Extractive industries• Trade regime• Investment regime
![Page 6: Canada’s 3D approach: Coherence, confusion or conspiracy?](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649e855503460f94b86f20/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
“Failed states” (cont’d)
3. Term is hyper-political:
• Broad range of contexts to which it applies• E.g. Somalia and Venezuela
• “conflict-affected” more suitable
![Page 7: Canada’s 3D approach: Coherence, confusion or conspiracy?](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649e855503460f94b86f20/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
“Failed States” (cont’d)
4. Intentions matter:• Dual purpose: threats to Canada and threats to
population• Different approaches to protect national security
and to protect populations• E.g. Afghanistan
![Page 8: Canada’s 3D approach: Coherence, confusion or conspiracy?](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649e855503460f94b86f20/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
“Failed States” (cont’d)
5. State-centric approach
• Focus on stabilizing the state• Civil society? Democracy?
• E.g. Afghanistan, Sudan
![Page 9: Canada’s 3D approach: Coherence, confusion or conspiracy?](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649e855503460f94b86f20/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
3D ApproachesSudan, Afghanistan Absence of policy framework Lack of clarity of whole of government:
integration vs. co-ordination Relationship between security and
development simplistic
![Page 10: Canada’s 3D approach: Coherence, confusion or conspiracy?](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649e855503460f94b86f20/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Conclusions
Need for clear policy framework Transparency Guidelines
Development cannot justify military action Military action must be last- not first- resort Humanitarian action must be independent Role of donors and Bank in “Nation-building”/
“state-building” must be critically examined