海角大神

In his speech last month marking the close of America鈥檚 Afghanistan War, President Joe Biden said the decision meant the end of major military operations 鈥渢o remake other countries.鈥�

It sounded like a knell, tolling the demise of an era of American nation building.

Over: the impulse to make democracies out of autocracies, as former President George W. Bush aimed for in launching the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

No more: the stabilization and institution-building initiatives of the sort ordered by former President Bill Clinton in Bosnia, Liberia, and elsewhere.

But is American-led nation building really ready for the history books? The answer, say many international development experts and former officials, is almost certainly not.

鈥淲e鈥檝e seen the pendulum swing back and forth between nation building 鈥� in my view better called state building 鈥� and 鈥� periods of the state-building fatigue we鈥檙e seeing now in the American public and others around the world,鈥� says Christopher Ankersen, a former security adviser to the United Nations system.

鈥淏ut that pendulum will swing back because the instinct for the U.S. and the West is still 鈥� to intervene to assist nations in building a stable and benevolent and just state,鈥� adds Professor Ankersen, who now teaches transnational security at New York University鈥檚 Center for Global Affairs. 鈥淎nd, frankly, because it remains in our interest to help create those stable states.鈥�

Higher profile for USAID

Indeed, one clue as to why the United States won鈥檛 turn its back on all nation building came in another decision Mr. Biden made in April, when he named former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power to head the U.S. Agency for International Development.

In announcing Ambassador Power鈥檚 appointment, Mr. Biden said the human rights and anti-genocide crusader would also be joining the National Security Council鈥檚 principals鈥� table 鈥� the first formal inclusion of the USAID administrator in the NSC and the first time the missions of international development and national security have been so closely linked.

The decision underscored what some longtime international affairs experts like former Reagan White House national security staffer Henry Nau have emphasized in the face of Afghanistan post-mortems: Nation building will go on because it will continue to be in America鈥檚 national security interest to strengthen unstable and failed states.

At the same time, others say, in an era of mass migrations 鈥� look no further than the U.S. southern border 鈥� it will remain in the national interest to help foreign governments and their citizens develop the tools to build secure, healthy, and fulfilling lives at home.

Odelyn Joseph/AP

USAID Administrator Samantha Power speaks during a visit to Haiti. She is the first USAID chief to be given a seat on the National Security Council, signaling a new focus on the importance of international development to U.S. security.

鈥淲e鈥檝e heard this 鈥榥ever again鈥� in regards to nation building before,鈥� says James Dobbins, who served in three administrations as special envoy to unstable states including Afghanistan, Haiti, Kosovo, and Somalia.

Most often, as is true now, this 鈥渉ighly negative assessment鈥� of nation building is reserved for 鈥渢he regime-change versions and forced-entry operations that require heavy boots on the ground鈥� in hostile environments, says Mr. Dobbins, distinguished chair in diplomacy and security at the Rand Corp. in Arlington, Virginia.

鈥淏ut there鈥檚 another version that has often involved peace-keeping in the aftermath of conflict and is more about assisting a country in moving on, satisfying basic needs, and developing the institutions that enable people to build better lives,鈥� as in the Balkans, Panama, or Sierra Leone, he says. 鈥淭hat is a form of nation building with a pretty good batting average.鈥�

Learning from failures

Nation building may have a bad name at the moment in the wake of the messy and in many ways disheartening withdrawal from Afghanistan. But the U.S. has also learned some important lessons from the experience that will serve it and the international community in the future, some experts say.

鈥淣ation building doesn鈥檛 work when you鈥檙e in a country that is in a civil war, where the political divisions are so sharp that the focus is on security and quelling violence,鈥� says J. Brian Atwood, who served as USAID administrator in the Clinton administration.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 see too many situations where a military-dominated nation-building mission is going to work or where we鈥檙e going to resort to that anytime soon,鈥� he adds. 鈥淵ou end up dominating and bullying, but successful development work is a partnership where you have enough trust for the two [sides] to work together.鈥�

The nation-building 鈥減artnership鈥� is not just between states, but also involves third parties such as multilateral development agencies and nongovernmental organizations. And a key reason nation-building efforts will continue is that the NGOs on the ground in places like Afghanistan say they are in for the long haul regardless of how the pendulum swings in Washington or elsewhere.

Rahmat Gul/AP/File

Former Afghan President Ashraf Ghani after his 2020 election victory. The collapse of his government last month, as U.S. troops withdrew from Afghanistan, offered striking evidence of the limits to U.S. military-backed nation building.

鈥淣ation building doesn鈥檛 end when there are certain representatives who leave the country on a plane,鈥� says Marianne O鈥橤rady, Afghanistan country director for CARE.

鈥淎 very large part of nation building is keeping the spirit alive no matter who is in charge [in the country]鈥� and 鈥渨ith or without the support of various people at any one time,鈥� she adds. 鈥淭he NGO world is there to fill some of the gaps, build new stairs on the building a country is constructing, and we鈥檙e going to continue doing that despite the bumps in the road.鈥�

Less reliance on contractors

Other lessons the U.S. and others are likely to learn from the Afghanistan experience: Future nation-building missions must take into account political will (both at home and in the receiving country) and limits on resources. And they are likely to be limited to areas of priority to national security 鈥� no more grandiose missions in what experts call 鈥減eripheral regions.鈥�

鈥淥bama鈥檚 intervention in Libya was a regime-change mission, but it did not result in a nation-building effort because Libya was not central to U.S. national security and 鈥� there was no appetite for it,鈥� says NYU鈥檚 Professor Ankersen. 鈥淲e will continue to see efforts if a country is interested in development,鈥� he adds, 鈥渕aybe has a peace process or post-conflict reconciliation going, but no belligerent parties opposing the outside assistance.鈥�

In Iraq and Afghanistan, civilian contractors did a lot of the nation-building work. Mr. Atwood expects to see less of that in future, in part due to sharp criticism of some contractors鈥� actions, and also because Ambassador Power is pressing to beef up USAID to allow for more U.S. development representatives on the ground.

鈥淚 think we鈥檝e gone too far towards contractors in recent years, we鈥檝e had too many experiences where some haven鈥檛 been efficient or others didn鈥檛 fulfill the task they were assigned,鈥� says Mr. Atwood, a visiting fellow at Brown University鈥檚 Thomas Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs.

鈥淲e should be sending more of our own expert talent to the field, working with people on the ground to build local ownership,鈥� he adds.

Rivalry with China

Noting that President Biden continues to push his democracy agenda, Rand鈥檚 Mr. Dobbins says he also expects to see the U.S. ratchet up the elements of nation-building work that aim to strengthen the rules-based order both within countries and internationally 鈥� especially as competition with China for commercial and trade partners heats up.

鈥淭here鈥檚 definitely a competition between those who believe in rules and respect for international law and democracy, and those who don鈥檛 care whether their partners are dictatorships or abuse their populations,鈥� he says. 鈥淭he U.S. is going to continue to look to build partnerships that respect both the international rules of the road and human rights.鈥�

Ms. O鈥橤rady of CARE says it would be 鈥渨onderful鈥� to see American development experts returning to Kabul to fill the building that USAID has left vacant. But whether or not that happens anytime soon, she is confident that the nation-building work the international community has pursued in Afghanistan for more than two decades will continue.

鈥淲e are facing a struggle right now in terms of understanding how we can deliver girls鈥� education with the unknowns of the new government,鈥� she says, citing one example.

But calling on existing partnerships and 鈥渇iguring out together how we can continue this really important work is what growing a nation together means,鈥� she adds. It鈥檚 that 鈥渃ommitment over time that brings communities forward,鈥� she says, 鈥渁nd that [commitment] isn鈥檛 going anywhere.鈥�