America's Strategy for Conflict Prevention and Stabilization (1) Motives and Objectives

Late last month, the US administration unveiled its strategy to prevent conflict and promote stability for the next ten years in a select group of countries that suffer from political, economic, social, security, humanitarian and environmental fragility, and these countries are: Libya, Mozambique, Haiti, Papua New Guinea, and a group of countries on the west coast of the continent of Africa that includes: Guinea, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Togo and Benin, in accordance with the United States strategy launched in 2020 under the title "Strategy for Conflict Prevention and Promoting Stability".

What is this plan? What are its objectives? And why were these countries specifically chosen? Is it a humanitarian plan or national interests? Will the United States succeed in this strategy when it has so far failed in all its previous experiments, most recently Ukraine? Is this plan related to the World Transformation Plan known as the Sustainable Development Goals 2030?

Many questions arise in front of this strategy, which is a living example of the methodology of work carried out by the United States in achieving its foreign interests, and explains to us many of the events and developments that revolve around us and we follow their parts in the media without being able to organize them in an integrated scene.

The strategy suggests that the United States is not based on purely humanitarian motives, but rather to protect its national interests and those of its allies and partners

Humanitarian motives or national interests?

Why should the United States develop such a strategy and pay attention to fragile countries? Why is its external focus focused on conflict prevention and the promotion of stability? Are they humanitarian motives, based on its repeated slogans about the protection of human beings, the welfare of peoples, the development and modernization of societies, and the dissemination of the values of coexistence and integration, and is the only imperial state that leads the world alone? Or is it the strategic national interests of the United States and its allies and partners?

The strategy clearly indicates that the United States is pursuing this strategy to protect its national interests and those of its allies and partners; the world "faces increasing risks of conflict, violence, and instability, and international armed conflict and state instability, in particular, pose threats to the American people, to U.S. interests at home and abroad, and to U.S. allies and partners. Amid this instability, malign adversaries and actors can prey on weak governments, exploit their own people, build their influence, and promote their narrow interests or extremist ideologies."

The strategy states that fragile states pose threats to the interests of the United States and its allies and partners, especially in the following areas:

• Provide fertile ground for violent extremists and criminal organizations that threaten the security of the United States and its allies as terrorists continue to operate and seek safe havens in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere.
• Fragile countries and regions have the potential to become large future markets and future trading partners for the United States, but violence and corruption hinder trade and investment. In 2017, the estimated economic impact of violence was $14.76 trillion, equivalent to 12.4 percent of global GDP. Moreover, this shows the magnitude of the investment opportunities that the United States seeks to seize in these countries.
• The erosion of international peace and the destabilization of partner countries and regions, as a growing number of countries suffer from protracted violent conflict that causes violence to civilians and civilian infrastructure. Long-term peacekeeping operations often entail prohibitive costs estimated at billions of dollars annually.
• Promote authoritarianism and external exploitation, and increase the influence of U.S. competitors in both the physical and digital spheres over fragile states that are more vulnerable to Russian and Chinese coercion. This illustrates once again the U.S. concern about fragile states being left to its strategic adversaries, China and Russia.

Will the United States succeed in its new strategy, recouping the loss suffered by its previous plans and destructive failed policies? The context of the events taking place in Ukraine does not augur well for this success, but rather confirms that this plan is only a new crystallization of the previous approach

The idea of the strategy and its objectives

The 2017 U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) affirmed that the United States will work to strengthen fragile states, whose weakness or failure increases the threat to the United States, and that it will empower reform-oriented governments and civil society institutions. This commitment was confirmed by former President Donald Trump when he signed the Global Fragility Act (GFA) in December 2019.

The U.S. Strategy for Conflict Prevention and Stabilization was designed to meet the requirements of the law to address global violence, conflict and extremism over the next decade to 2030, when the goals of the Sustainable Development Plan are achieved, and was issued in early 2020 to help countries transition from fragility to stability, from conflict to peace, and to support peaceful states that rely on themselves to become economic and security partners of the United States. The strategy was developed based on reforms initiated by the 2018 Stabilization Assistance Report, the 2018 Eli Wiesel Genocide Prevention Act, the 2018 National Counterterrorism Strategy, and the 2019 U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace and Security. Before the strategy began, the United States Government consulted with more than 200 civil society experts, non-governmental organizations, partners and multilateral organizations.

The strategy is a shared responsibility of the Departments of State, Defense, and Treasury, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The strategy indirectly acknowledges the failure of past U.S. policies in addressing fragility issues, emphasizing that this time the United States will take a different approach from previous efforts; instead of working on nation-building from abroad, the United States will support domestically driven political solutions that align with U.S. national security interests, rather than fragmented and large-scale efforts, the United States will aim to address the political factors that lead to fragility, and instead of widespread and open efforts, it will engage The United States selectively based on national interests, the host country's political progress, and specific metrics, and instead of carrying out a disparate set of activities, the United States will strategically integrate its diplomatic and programmatic policy and response.

The strategy identified the following four objectives of working with priority countries and regions:

The strategy states that the United States will work to achieve these goals through concerted efforts, setting clear priorities, and integrating all U.S. foreign policy tools: diplomacy, defense and security cooperation, trade and investment, sanctions, and other financial pressure tools, intelligence and analysis, and strategic communications. It stresses that the United States will recruit and train staff to work more effectively in fragile environments. The United States will not undertake these efforts alone, but by forging new partnerships with civil society, the private sector, regional partners, and bilateral and multilateral contributors who can provide expertise and share the financial burden.

The strategy also emphasizes that its success requires discipline and commitment from the entire U.S. government and its partner governments in this project, the creation of dynamic, forward-facing strategies, and flexible resources in time to bring about change. Through this new approach, the United States seeks to avoid past mistakes, improve U.S. national security interests in fragile environments, and modify or terminate programs that do not deliver enough results or where partners do not meet their commitments.

Will the United States succeed in its new strategy, recouping the loss suffered by its previous plans and destructive failed policies? The context of the events taking place in the Ukrainian crisis does not augur well for this success, but rather confirms that this plan is only a new crystallization of the previous approach.

(To be continued... What countries are fragile?)