| |
Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has engaged in reconstruction and stabilization operations in more than 17 countries. The majority of these interventions have occurred in states in Africa and the Middle Eeast with weak political institutions. In many weak states, such as Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Liberia, Afghanistan, Central African Republic, and Lebanon, deadly conflict is still widely prevalent or bubbling just beneath the surface.
Weak states pose threats to U.S. national security and to the quality of life for more than a billion people around the globe. Problems such as armed violence, lopsided distribution of resources, and the lack of a functioning, legitimate government can’t be solved by the military. Yet U.S. policymakers have consistently sent the military to such states in the hope of “establishing peace” because the U.S. lacks a civilian alternative or a civilian “peacebuilders corps.”
“It’s like sending police to guard a ruined neighborhood, but not sending the carpenters and the electricians and the plumbers to help residents rebuild it,” one U.S. official said regarding the current U.S. response to stabilization and reconstruction operations.
To address this gap in the U.S. response to post-conflict societies, members of Congress in both the Senate and the House have introduced bills ( S. 613 and H.R. 1084) that would authorize a corps of “civilian peacebuilders” skilled in finance, agriculture, health care, education, and civilian policing. In crisis situations, these teams would be sent quickly to the affected state or region to collaborate with local governments in rebuilding civilian institutions, revitalizing financial markets and supporting a legitimate police force to provide security and protect civilians.
By using civilian peacebuilders in war-torn countries, the U.S. would not only provide a more effective response to deadly conflict, but save lives and resources by helping these states move toward a sustainable peace.
Take Action
Go Back
|
|
