What are the main arguments that make up the debate about fragile states? This research from the Danish Institute for International Studies suggests that the fragile states debate is essentially about politics. Focusing on the security-development nexus and on statebuilding, it shows how the debate concerns principles that are fundamental to the way we perceive the present world order. This creates a tension between idealism and realism. There is a need to prioritise and make choices between different values.
Today, strong states are seen as a prerequisite for both human and international security. It is a state’s responsibility to ensure that its citizens are ‘free from want’ and ‘free from fear’. A more interventionist international role is also evident: if states do not live up to their responsibilities, it is the task of the more responsible members of the international community to intervene – for the sake not only of the citizens, but also of wider international peace and security. This shift has been ongoing since the end of the Cold War.
Concern for state fragility covers a broad spectrum, embracing claims that fragile states present direct threats to Western national security, alongside arguments that dysfunctional state institutions are the key obstacle to sustainable development. The debate thus links security and development communities in a claim that addressing state fragility is one of the most pressing policy questions of our time.
Beneath this broad consensus, lie a number of often contradictory perceptions of the nature of the problem and the appropriate solutions.
- Some observers believe that security is indivisible and that a world where some live in comfort and plenty while half of the human race lives on less than two dollars a day is neither just nor stable.
- This enlightened self-interest builds on the assumption that there is a high degree of overlap between ‘our’ national security and ‘their’ human security.
- Others from both sides of the political spectrum argue that the current concern with fragile states indicates a return to a state-centric approach to security.
- Some see this as a deplorable regression to the practice of propping up ‘friendly’ yet repressive regimes, while others see it as a much needed revision of overly ambitious liberal foreign-policy aims.
- As far as the security-development nexus is concerned, the two fields remain identifiable as distinct policy domains, and tensions between them are evident in the fragile states debate.
- Most accounts of the security-development nexus draw on the liberal peace thesis, which argues that democratisation will create the conditions for peace and development both locally and globally.
A core question is not whether these standards and values are universally applicable but how they can be put into practice in fragile states. Apart from this general concern, the security-development nexus frames the debate thus:
- State fragility is a source of transnational threats;
- Bad governance is a root cause of state fragility;
- Integrated approaches are needed to address both the causes and consequences of state fragility; and
- A core point of contestation revolves around which domain matters the most.
