The Foreign Service Journal, February 2006

F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 6 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 33 F O C U S O N S E C . R I C E ’ S F I R S T Y E A R P EACEBUILDING : A N EW N ATIONAL S ECURITY I MPERATIVE D ESPITE S EC . R ICE ’ S SUPPORT , THE O FFICE OF THE C OORDINATOR FOR R ECONSTRUCTION AND S TABILIZATION HAS NOT GOTTEN OFF TO A STRONG START . B Y P ETER H. G ANTZ n Dec. 7, 2005, President Bush issued a new directive (NSPD-44) that aims to improve U.S. government coordination, planning and implementation for stabilization and reconstruction assis- tance to countries and regions approaching, in, or transi- tioning from conflict. NSPD-44 establishes the Secretary of State as the lead actor of integrated efforts, involving all relevant departments and agencies, to prepare, plan for and conduct stabilization and reconstruction activities. In cases of U.S. military involvement, the directive states, the Secretary of State shall coordinate with the Secretary of Defense to ensure harmonization with any planned or ongoing U.S. military operations. DOD Directive 3000.05 (released in late November 2005) establishes how the Defense Department will address and develop capabilities for stability, security, transition and reconstruction and commits the Defense Department to supporting U.S. stabilization and reconstruction efforts. The new directives are the latest steps taken to fix the U.S. government’s woeful capabilities for stabilization and reconstruction, an effort that began with the creation of the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization in August 2004. These reforms are a signifi- cant change for an administration that once dismissed peacekeeping as something other people should do. The directives reflect acceptance of a critical lesson identified in the national security strategy of the United States: “The events of Sept. 11, 2001, taught us that weak states, like Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our national interests as strong states.” The implications should be clear: U.S. national securi- ty interests are served not just by military expenditures and actions, but also by civilian expenditures and activities. Foreign assistance involves much more than doing good things for people in need because of a moral imperative to do so. It should tackle the linkages between poverty, the failure of state institutions, violent conflict and terrorism. Nevertheless, in November 2005 House and Senate conferees for the State and Foreign Operations appropri- ations bills failed to provide funding for S/CRS in FY 2006. The release of the new directives, combined with the funding failures, makes clear that in 2006, two things need to happen: the U.S. government must continue to build upon what S/CRS has begun, and Congress and the Bush administration must work to reorganize government funding channels to ensure that all national security sup- port programs are adequately funded. Formally established in August 2004, S/CRS initially operated on a shoestring budget with a small staff of eight full-time employees, supplemented by several dozen per- O