1. Canada’s 3D approach: Coherence, confusion or conspiracy?

3. Introduction Deconstructing “failed states” 3D approaches (Development, Diplomacy, Defense) Sudan Afghanistan Conclusions

4. “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

5. “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

6. “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

7. “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

8. “Failed States” (cont’d) 5. State-centric approach Focus on stabilizing the state Civil society? Democracy? E.g. Afghanistan, Sudan

9. 3D Approaches Sudan, Afghanistan Absence of policy framework Lack of clarity of whole of government: integration vs. co-ordination Relationship between security and development simplistic

10. 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