MoStFab: A new book: Multinational statebuilding in Afghanistan

Saturday, August 27, 2011

A new book: Multinational statebuilding in Afghanistan

A lot of work went into this one - and I'm proud to announce that this book (see below) has finally been published, with editing and contributions by Yours Truly - and with contributions from many other authors with whom it was an honour to work together and a pleasure to write it.

I'm sharing news of it in the hope that you may find it interesting.

Statebuilding in Afghanistan: Multinational contributions to reconstruction. Edited by Nik Hynek and Péter Marton. London: Routledge, 2011.

A few words about the concept:

This edited volume empirically maps and theorises NATO-ISAF’s contribution to peacebuilding and reconstruction in Afghanistan. The book provides a contextual framework of the NATO participation in Afghanistan; it offers an outline of the security situation in Afghanistan and discusses geopolitical, historical, and military factors related to it.

It argues that a general underlying factor shaping the dynamics of the Afghanistan mission is that although its stated goals may be similarly formulated across the ISAF coalition, there are a great number of differences in the nature of coalition members’ political calculations, and share of the burden, and that this induces a dynamic of alliance politics that state actors attempt to either mitigate, navigate, or exploit - depending on their interests and views. The book asks why there are differences in countries’ share of the burden; how they manifest in different approaches; and how the actual performance of different members of the coalition ought to be assessed. It argues that understanding this offers clues as to what does not work in current state-building efforts, beyond individual countries’ experiences and the more general critique of statebuilding philosophy and practice.

This book answers key questions through a series of case studies which together form a comparative study of national contributions to the multilateral mission in Afghanistan. In so doing, it provides a uniquely sensitive analysis that can help explain coalition contributions from various countries. It will be of great interest to students of Afghanistan, Asian politics, peacebuilding, statebuilding, war and conflict studies, IR and Security Studies generally.

The contents:

Nik Hynek - Péter Marton: Introduction: what makes coalitions s/tick?

Anthony King: Operation Herrick: the British campaign in Helmand

Timo Behr: Germany and Regional Command-North: ISAF's weakest link?

Sebastiaan Rietjens: Between expectations and reality: the Dutch engagement in Uruzgan

Joshua Foust: France in Kapisa: a combined approach to statebuilding

Benjamin Zyla: Canada and collective action in Afghanistan: theory meets practice

William Maley: PRT activity in Afghanistan: the Australian experience

Stephen Hoadley: The New Zealand PRT experience in Bamyan Province: assessing political legitimacy and operational achievements

Kristian Berg Harpviken: A peace nation in the war on terror: the Norwegian engagement in Afghanistan

Charly Salonius-Pasternak: Finland's ISAF experience: rewarding, challenging and on the edge of the politically feasible

Péter Marton - Péter Wagner: Hungary's involvement in Afghanistan: Proudly going through the motions?

Łukasz Kulesa - Beata Górka-Winter: From followers to leaders as "coalition servants": the Polish engagement in Afghanistan

Nik Hynek - Jan Eichler: Post-decisional and alliance-dependent: the Czech engagement in Logar

Petros Vamvakas: Turkey's ISAF mission: a maverick with strategic depth

Egdūnas Račius: Trials and tribulations of the Lithuanian participation in the NATO ISAF mission

The cover:

2 comments:

TwShiloh said...: Congratulations on this. Looks good and I'm looking forward to reading it.; August 27, 2011 at 2:59 PM
Péter Marton said...: Thanks! :) I'm looking forward to your comments!
Péter; August 30, 2011 at 8:51 AM

Post a Comment

A conceptualisation of state failure in a nutshell

Hello, this is Péter Marton speaking. Let me say a few words here about what on Earth I'm referring to in the title of this blog I launched in 2007. This is due here for the attention of those, too, who might have read the greater part of the literature on state failure. One should, after all, make it clear what one means by what one says.
***
Reflecting the dual nature of the discourse, we can view states that are dysfunctional in one sense or another both with humanitarian and security concerns - in the most simple alternative terms: with concern for 'them' (the locals) and with concern for 'ourselves' ('over here'). That is the key to my conceptualisation. In e.g. Rotberg (2003, 2004) you'll find a mixed approach with security concerns voiced in the title of the volume of studies published in 2003 ('State Failure and State Weakness in a Time of Terror'), and humanitarian concerns voiced in basically all the studies included in it.
***
I define state failure as a phenomenon with the analogy of 'market failures' in mind. Just like an instance of market failure doesn't constitute an overall failure of the market as an institution, state failure doesn't necessarily mean the end or full absence of the state.
***
From a security point of view I conceptualise the state as 'a unit responsible for territorial control over a unit of world territory bounded by internationally recognised borders.' It is thus the failure of that unit when events or processes can take place within its boundaries that produce negative security consequences or 'negative spill-over effects' (NSEs) for the outside world (a neighbouring state or region or even all the states in the world, potentially). That may also be termed an 'IRG-failure,' the failure of the Internationally Recognised Government of the given state. It's a vital element that IRG-failure be contrary to the will of the IRG (which should be either unable to stop it from happening or be incapable of significantly hampering it). This way of defining state failure builds on the premise that security is globally interdependent - hence the definition of the 'chief function of the state' here is presented the way it is.
***
From a humanitarian point of view, I regard the state as 'the means for the population of a unit of world territory, inhabiting the area bounded by internationally recognised borders, to provide stable life prospects for the long run'. The humanitarian definition of state failure will thus be quite broad - which may restrict its analytical usefulness. It will cover civil war-torn states, extremely poor states, as well as authoritarian regimes that use a lot of arbitrary violence. It will exclude states that provide stability in one way or another - using Michael Nicholson's terms, these can either be ruled by an authoritarian regime producing 'coercive stability' or governed by a democratic regime producing 'consensual stability'.

Copyrights to all material on MoStFab (previously known as MStFB) are reserved, with the exception of such images, used here in the blog's author's view in accordance with 'fair use' terms, that belong to a copyright owner other than MoStFab. MoStFab's own content can be cited or excerpted in a sensible and proportionate manner, or e.g. included in non-commercial, on-line news digests, with proper reference (including a link) to MoStFab as the source, and to the author, by name, of any referenced post.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

A new book: Multinational statebuilding in Afghanistan

2 comments:

MoStFab on Twitter

Blog Archive

Blog 'n' roll

A conceptualisation of state failure in a nutshell

Visitors

Copyright notice

Labels