Evolving policy in a changing world: Examining challenges and opportunities in the new US Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review

David Alpher analyses the new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review by the US government and explains why it offers both opportunities and challenges in terms of addressing conflict and fragility.

On April 29, the US government (USG) released the new Quadrennial Development and Diplomatic Review (QDDR). Only the second of its kind, the new QDDR represents the highest-level policy architecture coordinating the non-military aspects of US government foreign policy; international development and diplomacy. It therefore offers an important window into the USG’s vision of how to build security and sustainable development in an unstable and rapidly changing world.

Saferworld believes that an effective QDDR strategy should integrate development and diplomacy with a ‘whole of government approach’ ensuring that US government policies across a wide range of areas are harmonious and mutually reinforcing. It should also provide a long-term vision and roadmap for US foreign policy and development, one that goes beyond simply responding to crises, and addresses the root causes of conflict. Finally, it is crucial that the QDDR places the principles of conflict sensitivity at the heart of development, ensuring that as we seek to lift people out of poverty we do not simultaneously fuel conflict and instability.

Many steps in the right direction – applying conflict sensitivity

The QDDR has 4 key pillars: inclusive economic growth, conflict and violent extremism, open, democratic societies, and climate change. The focus on inclusive economic growth is especially important alongside conflict prevention policy, as the combination helps to reinforce the relationship between areas of policy and operation which are often seen as separate worlds. The QDDR persuasively argues that the underlying drivers of conflict and fragility must be recognized and addressed through interventions that go beyond simply promoting what they refer to as “strong government(s)” but also includes economic equality. It then acknowledges these factors are best dealt with proactively and preventively through non-military efforts to identify, understand and address the root causes and conditions of violence, stating “lack of economic opportunity as well as real and perceived unfairness relating to corruption or marginalization and extreme poverty can alienate citizens from governments and make populations more susceptible to extremist or authoritarian ideologies”. How this understanding will be put into practice remains to be seen, but it marks a new emphasis on prevention in QDDR language that Saferworld welcomes.

There is also an expanded emphasis on conflict analysis with the strategy focusing not only investing in and expanding tools available for analyzing conflict, but also emphasizing early warning - referred to in the document as “forecasting fragility”, a key component of prevention-based policy making and action. This is important, but would be improved still further by prioritizing local perspectives to ensure that analysis is grounded in local understanding and needs. Evidence has shown that approaches defined by the concerns and priorities of conflict-affected communities are more likely to have greater success at lasting and meaningful change. Even more importantly, the QDDR also addresses implementation and political will, committing to "ensure that significant early warning shifts trigger senior-level review of the mission's strategy and, if necessary, adjustments." This speaks directly to past roadblocks between analysis and operations: without ensuring the political will to secure funds and resources to understand long-term structural conflict dynamics and support programming that promotes sustainable peace before a crisis response is necessary, improvements to analysis and early warning can easily come to nothing.

Addressing governance deficits

Both the original and the new QDDR focus on governance as a core component of conflict prevention, recognizing that the quality of governance influences peace. Although there remain inconsistencies within the document with how governance is defined, there are also notable improvements. While the original document in 2010 focused on weak and fragile institutions as the definition of the problem, the current document refers to Syria and Libya as examples of “strong governance” that led to failed states.  This constitutes a welcome acknowledgement by the USG that ‘strong’ institutions (in the form of authoritarian regimes) can also fuel instability if they are not perceived by people to be legitimate and accountable.  That acknowledgement is not, however, consistently defined or applied in USG policy.

That said, the document does acknowledge the difficulties facing foreign policy in working with governance challenged allies stating that "at times we may face tensions between our short-term security interests and our long-term interest in stable democratic states that respect universal human rights and fundamental freedoms. We acknowledge this tension. We remain committed to democracy, good governance, and human rights because they provide the solid foundation for a more peaceful, secure, prosperous and just world." This is an important statement that has the potential to transform US foreign policy.  Nevertheless, the paradox remains—attempting to achieve security in the short term by supporting governments that undermine long term prospects for peace and stability is ultimately unsustainable.  In acknowledging this tension, the USG should be clear whose security it is looking to improve over the long term.

Countering violent extremism – balancing caution and urgency

In the current climate of US domestic security it is understandable that ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ (CVE) features prominently in the new QDDR, yet the USG’s approach seems to overly emphasize extremism as  something that can be eliminated, rather than recognizing it as a symptom of deeper issues. Evidence has shown that attempting to “fix the problem” by eliminating groups seen as extremist or radical through military intervention rarely succeeds and can drive further radicalization and protracted insecurity. This approach also risks diverting attention and resources away from a deeper interrogation of the underlying conflict context and the roles and responsibilities of those directly involved in it.

Being effective at ‘Countering’ Violent Extremism in such a way that addresses root causes rather than attacking symptoms, requires a fundamental reimagining of the strategic approach to conflict overall. This includes adequately interrogating allies’ motives when entering into joint operations. Alliances formed to eliminate terrorist groups can be lucrative for the partner countries, potentially incentivizing an extension of the crisis. Allies may also manipulate the objectives of CVE work to forward repressive responses to domestic political concerns, such as outlawing political opposition or speech critical of the government. For example, the QDDR puts great emphasis on the Global Counter-Terrorism Forum as a platform for joint action to fight extremism. However, the individual members of this forum include  Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates—countries whose actions and motivations the USG must examine to avoid these potential pitfalls. In addition, the QDDR (and US foreign policy as a whole) assumes US action and intervention will automatically be more beneficial than inaction in any given context. This also needs critical examination—not as an argument for inaction or abdication of responsibility to protect civilians, but as encouragement to learn from previous experiences where US involvement produced unintended negative outcomes.

The expanded research into radicalization prioritized under the CVE pillar presents the USG with an opportunity to invest in better understanding the root causes of radicalization and extremism, a critical prerequisite to creating more effective interventions. Saferworld’s own research has shown that programs that focus on preventing radicalization and extremism are often based on simplistic and untested assumptions, and compromise results by seeking to address the assumed ‘drivers’ of extremism (such as poverty or insufficient livelihoods) without adequate evidence. The USG’s emphasis on research as part of their CVE pillar acknowledges how much is still unknown in terms of designing effective interventions to promote peace in contexts at risk of radicalization and an intention to fill this knowledge gap.

Conclusion

The new QDDR makes some improvements towards producing a more conflict sensitive whole of government approach towards foreign policy and development. It also offers an improved long-term vision for building more people-focused security by increasing focus and interaction with civil society and sub-state entities so as to require less reaction to crisis. The real test however, will come not on paper, but in implementation. American foreign policy tends to be driven by domestically-defined security concerns, and the QDDR continues this pattern.  While understandable, such a framing misses the opportunity to advance a more holistic definition of peace as defined by those experiencing conflict. As noted above, the USG should therefore broaden its definition of whose security it is looking to improve.

Overall, the QDDR takes a more broadly internationalist tone than its predecessor did—an improvement to be encouraged as the foundation of a more collaborative and nuanced foreign policy. Successful implementation will require a fine balance of coordination with the defense apparatus, while avoiding “securitization of aid.” It is also crucial that the QDDR succeeds in its effort to place the principles of conflict sensitivity at the heart of development, ensuring that as we seek to lift people out of poverty we do not simultaneously fuel conflict and instability. There is much within it to applaud and encourage… but still more to push for lest those gains go unrealized.

David Alpher is Saferworld's Washington Associate.

Find out more about our policy and advocacy work in the USA.

“Being effective at ‘countering violent extremism' in such a way that addresses root causes rather than attacking symptoms requires a fundamental re-imagining of the strategic approach to conflict overall.”

David Alpher