by Joel VanDixhorn | Speaker calls for institutions, not charity.
Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day, but teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Andrew Natsios’ lecture, which took place February 22, could be summed up by this timeless maxim. Natsios, a former director of the US Agency for International Development, spoke for nearly an hour about nation-building and his observations over the past fifty years pertaining to the US attempt to reconstruct chaotic states. While he specifically stated that his talk was not about the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, much of what was said could be used to analyze policy regarding Iraq.
To begin, Natsios attempted to scrutinize the misnomer “nation-building.” By definition, a nation is a group of people who may or may not possess a body of land. However, until such a group actually possesses land it cannot be considered a state. He believes that the US should get back to developing effectively run states, as opposed to engineering nations. The only way to create a self-sufficient country, according to Natsios, is to oversee the development of sustainable institutions. Otherwise, all of the aid and all of the humanitarian efforts are wasted as progress is eroded as soon as the flow of cash disappears. A tangible microcosm of this is the attempt to decrease infant mortality and malnutrition rates in third world countries. Social scientists and doctors can greatly reduce these effects of poverty. However, proper funding for hospitals and political infrastructure are absent, forcing these countries to depend on the charity of richer nations. Of course, the great debate lies in how to build up these state institutions.
Natsios outlined several variables for successful institution transformation. Some of these variables can be controlled by the US or by other nations attempting to transplant democracy, but others are left to chance. The actions of elite leaders, combined with the amount of time and resources committed by the overseeing nation, are the main determinants of success.
Leaders of infant nation-states have the ability to misuse powers that have yet to develop established limits. Because of this, leaders create a definition of “democracy” for constituents that could undermine the efforts of democratization. Leaders of countries, such as Colombia and Mozambique, may commit atrocities while still operating under the façade of democracy. This taints the concept of democracy, creating a negative connotation of the word in affected states. This is one reason why the “political culture” approach to democratization is flawed. People establish opinions through personal experiences as opposed to a logical analysis of situations. Critics of the Iraqi invasion point to the culture that exists in the Middle East as a reason for the failure of democracy. Natsios would look to the inability of nations to develop institutions that effectively cater to specific cultures. The capacity of institutions to flex and fit to certain nations is the key to success. One must look no further than the US and the UK for distinct institutional differences between two liberal democracies.
Natsios presented another indicator of success for democratization: proximity to a large, threatening state, such as Russia or China. This is one reason, he noted, for the relative success of Asian and Eastern European countries while Latin America has been mired in disorder. South Korea is a prime example of this phenomenon. The political elites in South Korea were forced to act in the best interest of the country or else their own power would dissipate. Clearly, this is nothing the US can control, but it can be used to determine the probability of success. Currently, it is uncertain whether or not Iran could fill this role.
The second point of Natsios’ speech would create a firestorm in the US Congress. He stated that while assigning a large amount of resources to developing nations will not guarantee success, democratization will not occur without it. The idea that the US could commit a plethora of resources without any assurance of success is a frightening one to say the least. However, if the US wants to take a serious role in state-building this is a risk it may be forced to take. This argument has serious implications for current US foreign policy. Liberals are still angry about American entry into Iraq but the fact remains that the US is presented with an opportunity to facilitate democratization. The debate now is whether or not democratization is the goal and whether or not it is feasible. Those still advocating for the advancement of freedom and liberty, especially those who originally used such goals to justify war, must now also defend continued involvement in Iraq.
Natsios brought many fresh and unique opinions and observations to Tufts. He mentioned his desire to present such a speech due to the lack of comparable discussion in the academic community. Hopefully, this frank and intelligent discussion will find its way to Congress and generate a cerebral, as opposed to politicized, strategy for Iraq.
Mr. VanDixhorn is a sophomore majoring in Political Science and Economics.
Comments