The U.S. government has an opportunity to pursue effective and conflict-aware stabilization, building upon the U.S. Stabilization Assistance Review (SAR) framework signed in June 2018.1 The SAR clarified roles and streamlined priorities for stabilization assistance, though “implementation will require sustained leadership, an interagency roadmap, new processes, bureaucratic incentives, and a review of authorities and resources.”2 The SAR includes a unified U.S. government definition of stabilization that recognizes stabilization as an “inherently political endeavor involving an integrated civilian-military process to create conditions where locally legitimate authorities and systems can peaceably manage conflict and prevent a resurgence of violence.”3
CSIS has embarked on a study to examine how to operationalize and build upon the SAR framework. This brief serves as a companion to a brief published in January 2019 which called for a clearer and contextualized definition of stabilization success and well-delineated roles, goals, and leadership structures in the U.S. interagency. It emphasized the importance of local actors and called for a process-based approached to assessment, monitoring, and evaluation (AM&E).4 This brief builds on the first by focusing on the lessons learned from past stabilization efforts and by addressing a key element of successful SAR implementation: partnerships. Success requires deeper interagency coordination and substantive partnerships with international partners. Lastly, this brief addresses a fundamental challenge to SAR implementation: updating the U.S. government’s tools, authorities, and resourcing to increase chances of success.
LESSONS LEARNED FROM PAST U.S. STABILIZATION EFFORTS
Past stabilization efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in significant skepticism and aversion to undertaking similar large-scale, U.S.-led efforts perceived to be “nation building.” They did, however, provide important lessons, many of which ostensibly helped shape the SAR, that should be considered as part of future U.S. stabilization efforts.5 An important lesson from these experiences is to avoid launching stabilization efforts as an afterthought to short- term military and counterterrorism priorities and realizing that stabilization often requires longer- term commitments. Stabilization should be part of early strategic planning efforts. Another lesson is the importance of clarity and transparency in stabilization efforts, which should provide clear objectives, expectations, and delineation of responsibilities. Finally, past efforts have shown the value of setting targeted, realistic, and achievable governance, security, and development goals developed with local buy-in, interagency coordination, and optimization of effort across relevant domestic and international stabilization actors. While often difficult, alignment and partnership within the U.S. interagency, implementing partners, and among allied and partner institutions is critical to stabilization success.
POLICYMAKERS, IMPLEMENTERS, AND BRIDGING DIVIDES
The SAR provides a framework for U.S. government actors to have positive, stabilizing effects in fragile and contested states. To operationalize this framework, policymakers and implementers must understand and address the challenges to bridging the bureaucratic divides that may be inhibiting progress. This will require unprecedented interagency cooperation and greater cohesion between those at the policy, field, and implementation levels.
DEFINING STRATEGIES WITH FLEXIBILITY IN MIND
The SAR points out that 86 percent of surveyed U.S. government experts were unclear about the division of labor between U.S. government agencies on stabilization.6 Now that the interagency framework is in place, it is important for U.S. policymakers to define higher-level strategies and goals. The global balance of power is shifting and increased strategic competition has emerged as a challenge to the security and prosperity of the United States and its allies.7 Increased efforts by countries like China, Russia, and Iran to gain an advantage and fill real or perceived gaps in the “gray zones” that exist so often in fragile states has increased pressure to deliver results in stabilization contexts.8Overarching goals and strategies should be updated to reflect these new geopolitical realities. This includes tying stabilization planning and processes to strategies for fragile states and, within DoD, to irregular warfare approaches.
Strategies should also acknowledge—as the SAR does—the non-linearity of conflict, whereby “continued gains are by no means guaranteed” and flexibility and context- specific adaptation are required.9 Current U.S. government contracting mechanisms rarely allow implementers the ability to flexibly respond to realities on the ground. At USAID (the primary implementing agency for stabilization as designated by the SAR), contracting officers are often geographically removed from the specific country or regional context and are almost always over-burdened with too many projects on which to provide oversight. This results in technical officers taking more active roles in oversight and strategic direction while not having the authorities to approve changes based on field realities.10 The same challenges exist in tactical decisionmaking, for example on sub-contract and travel approvals. U.S. policymakers should consider delegating as much decision- making as possible to the country team or to technical officers to increase the agility of the stabilization response.
[Operationalizing the SAR framework] will require unprecedented interagency cooperation and greater cohesion between those at the policy, field, and implementation levels.
Hiring and posting more contracting officers in the field— or at least within regions—would give them a more direct understanding of these risks, which is important for their decision-making process. Creating more flexibility in stabilization programming is not without risk, especially with the existence of accountability review boards (ARBs). Career bureaucrats have, at times, seen the careers of peers negatively affected by the results of ARBs, which define success based on metrics that allow no margin for failure in a field that must allow for innovation and failures on a demonstrated pathway to success. These structural factors contribute to increased levels of risk aversion among policymakers. Additionally, mid-stream, programmatic changes could result in innovation, but they could also fail to produce the desired results. Strategies should allow for some ability for those in stabilization contexts to test and assess, then scale or rethink. Strategies—or at least implementation plans based on higher-level strategies—should be driven by those working in the stabilization context, with significant input at the design and implementation stages from international partners and implementers.
THE ROLE OF THE IMPLEMENTER
The SAR provides a solid framework for interagency cooperation on stabilization; however, it does not fully acknowledge the important role played by the people, organizations, and contractors implementing stabilization assistance. Implementers are often the ones in most direct contact with the local actors who are critical to the success of any stabilization effort. They understand local needs and should be included in future strategy development efforts. Whereas U.S. government employees often rotate out of stabilization contexts on yearly—or even shorter—timelines, many implementers work on the same countries or regions for years, decades, or entire careers. Incorporating priorities of local governments and civilians should be built into the U.S. government strategy development process; oftentimes implementers have the most regular access to these people, especially outside of capital cities. Implementers, in turn, must take care to avoid broad contextual generalizations based on interactions with a few local actors and staff, often the English-speaking, elite, or most vocal. In providing input into strategies, implementers should reflect nuanced and contextually-informed perspectives.
Iraqi men unload humanitarian aid supplies provided by the U.S. development agency USAID to displaced Iraqis who have fled clashes between Islamic State group jihadists and Peshmerga fighters. Source: MARWAN IBRAHIM/AFP/Getty Images
DEMAND-DRIVEN VERSUS MISSION-DRIVEN
Building trust and having productive relationships with locally legitimate partners is critical to stabilization operations. Stability is an inherently political phenomenon whereby local actors—politicians, bureaucrats, and civil society and even non-state actors—have much to gain from effective and conflict-aware operationalization of the SAR. Nevertheless, stabilization assistance has never been administered in the absence of U.S. strategic interests. There is a natural and inherent tension between any strategy developed only with U.S. strategic interests in mind and those only focused on the priorities of local actors and communities. However, there is often significant convergence between the two such that effective strategies can be developed with both in mind. Efforts should be taken to develop a foundation of trust between locally-legitimate actors (which can change throughout the course of a project or broader stabilization effort) and those executing U.S. stabilization assistance built on these shared values, interests, and goals.11
BRIDGING THE DIVIDESWithin the U.S. government there are bureaucratic forces at play that, without resolution, could slow or stall effective operationalization of the SAR. A core issue is the timely prioritization of stabilization as a policy, assistance, and defense priority within specific country contexts. Many countries must manage multiple and sometimes competing priorities. The departments and agency should establish systems and processes that facilitate conversations to share analysis and enable a process through which stabilization can be identified as a priority. However, complicating this ability to prioritize stabilization in a timely manner is a potential division between regional and functional players. While the challenges differ at DoD, USAID, and DoS, they are most acutely felt within DoS. Though the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO) and the U.S. Office of Foreign Assistance Resources (F) have leadership roles in SAR implementation, U.S. ambassadors—who have ultimate authority over field execution stabilization efforts—report and advance their careers through the regional structure at DoS. A similar, though perhaps less acute, phenomenon exists between USAID mission directors in the field who report through regional bureaus, OTI, and other parts of the agency tasked with the operationalization of the SAR. To address this, USAID has made the decision to create a Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Stabilization that will take the lead technical role on stabilization for USAID, working to support efforts across the agency.
Further complicating matters is the fact that stabilization country teams can and do adapt to local structural realities. It is hard for Washington-based counterparts tasked with the operationalization of the SAR to be similarly nimble; thus, lines of communication between the field (often focused on hyper-local issues) and Washington (focused at the policy level) can become muddled or blurred, especially after going through multiple layers of review. It is critical for DoS, USAID, and DoD to build strong lines of communication and feedback loops not only with the field but also within and across each of the departments and the agency.
The divides discussed above are most acutely manifested during the process of determining stabilization leadership structures. While the U.S. ambassador has ultimate authority in most cases, the makeup of the day-to-day operational team and leadership structure (both of which could be drawn from personnel already in country in many cases) is critical to the effort’s success. Those charged with the implementation of stabilization priorities should offer country teams updated capabilities matching the complexity of the given context. These teams should be built on a context-specific basis, but since stabilization contexts often require quick mobilization and action, it is worth establishing broad guidelines. The U.S. government team should integrate with existing assets on the ground, especially those within the U.S. embassy. Under the authority of—and tasked with close coordination with— the U.S. ambassador, it is critical that the stabilization team has a single leader. As part of DoS’s leadership of SAR implementation, CSO could then serve as the liaison between the leader within the embassy and Washington- based interagency stakeholders to ensure a streamlined approach, informed by rigorous and conflict-aware analysis that would establish stabilization as a priority, promote unity of purpose, and facilitate integrated design of stabilization efforts. In cases where stabilization is occurring in a region without the permission of the central government, or where the United States lacks an embassy, the civilian reporting “chain of command” should be clear, even if the stabilization resourcing platform is dispersed across perimeter countries (as in the case of northeast Syria).
Bridging these divides will take committed political leadership and effective policies to institutionalize change throughout the departments and the agency. A good first step would be to incorporate more modules on conflict analysis and stabilization planning that could be delivered as part of core training curriculums in an interagency format across DoS and USAID, including to stabilization-focused civil servants in DoD. Such training would require additional resources to develop and deliver meaningful content on a regular basis. Those responsible for operationalizing the SAR in the field and at the policy level should conduct joint, scenario-based planning exercises, even during initial phases of SAR implementation. These exercises should be used to bridge the divide while also addressing key operational questions. For example, are there actors that have demonstrated an ability to provide stability or security? Who are the actors that communities support and why? Are policy objectives in alignment with what locally-legitimate actors are able and interested in supporting? Exercises and training for stabilization should also consider that the focus on power elites will further alienate marginalized groups, which could manifest in governance and security challenges detrimental to stabilization goals. In addition, the legitimacy of the elites the United States is engaging with may shift over time. Developing mechanisms for inclusivity and an emphasis on power mapping rather than personality mapping will be important for teaching how to achieve enduring impact. Continually reassessing these and other questions and tweaking strategies accordingly will build trust and bridge divides while providing critical strategic direction to stabilization efforts. Co-deployment of civilian and military personnel is another productive way to ensure interagency coordination and integration, though differing approaches to risk and strategic objectives across the U.S. government often creates hurdles to implementation.
STRENGTHENING INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS AND ELIMINATING DISCONNECTS
Effective partnerships require common objectives and approaches. At the very least, partners in stabilization contexts must avoid having contradictory strategies. At best, these strategies are coordinated and executed in such a way that shares the burden and best utilizes each partner’s relative strengths.
SHARING THE BURDEN WITH INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS
The United States is a significant contributor to—and provides senior leadership of—almost all multilateral institutions that engage in stabilization contexts. However, the United States finds itself at an inflection point whereby previous assumptions of U.S. leadership in all stabilization contexts are being challenged by an increased focus on burden sharing. The combination of lingering self-perceptions of American superiority, “being burned” by unsatisfactory outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and political and fiscal pressures at home complicate the U.S. role abroad.” At the same time, the UN and the World Bank are actively enhancing their respective and joint peacebuilding architectures, which the United States should participate in and learn from, adding the U.S. perspective on stabilization throughout. In addition, the United Kingdom and Germany have recently refreshed their own strategies and organization for stabilization, from which the United States could learn. Early coordination with these multinational entities and bilateral partners will not only help avoid duplication but will identify comparative advantages for engagement. When addressing how, when, and where to share burdens, the United States and its international partners should focus on how joint—or at least deconflicted—efforts are mutually reinforcing and expand the collective ability to respond to challenges, especially in places where competition with Russia, China, and Iran exists. These discussions should happen as early in the U.S. government’s strategic planning as possible, ideally shortly after the stakeholder mapping exercise described above. This way international partner strategies and ongoing activities can be incorporated into U.S. government stabilization planning.
The United States finds itself at an inflection point whereby previous assumptions of U.S. leadership in all stabilization contexts are being challenged by an increased focus on burden sharing.
Many partnership discussions begin organically and informally in the field. More platforms for these interactions are needed, utilizing the comparative strengths and convening power of the United States and its international partners. These field efforts should be relayed to the appropriate policymakers who can support these field efforts to burden share by providing policy cover. However, even with the best combined planning between the United States and its range of partners, a common understanding of stabilization may remain elusive due to political, programmatic, or other constraints. Given this dilemma, the United States government and its local implementers should seek to provide the most concrete and specific priorities, milestones, measurements, and outcomes possible to avoid miscommunication or inflating expectations with local, bilateral, or multinational partners. A lack of a common definition should not be seen as a barrier to cooperation on stabilization. Many UN agencies (e.g., UNDP) have flexibility in funding and comparative advantages that provide an opportunity to build beyond specific bilateral donor efforts. The UN and other international partners may not have the same authority constraints as the U.S. government, and common contextual goals and objectives can be established even in the absence of a unified definition of stabilization. Multilateral institutions—through which many allied countries engage in stabilization contexts—can scale programming and think longer-term; early and regular coordination is critical to longer term stabilization success, as is ensuring accountability for the implementation of assistance. Bilateral partnerships can help drive the political process necessary for stabilization to take root and transition to longer-term development.
No comments:
Post a Comment