CSS Pressing Questions Competition: Intriguing Insights from Rising Scholars

When the Center for Strategic Studies first arrived at the Fletcher School, we knew that one of the chief assets available to us would be Fletcher’s students. Their diverse backgrounds and recent experience in the trenches of security policymaking made them a rich source of insights into an always-shifting global security environment. To unlock those insights, we asked students to submit short answers to several “Pressing Questions” we thought would be of interest to the broader security community. We were impressed with the results, and when you read the winning submissions, we think you will be too.

The First Question

What unconventional alternatives to military intervention do you believe the US should explore?

In which current conflicts do you believe these alternatives might be effective, and why?

Winner: Elissa Miller

Elissa Miller is a first-year MALD student at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University studying international security studies and international political economy. She is also a Nonresident Fellow at the Atlantic Council. Prior to Fletcher, Elissa was an Assistant Director at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East.

Leveraging Local Governance for Stability

More than six years after the NATO intervention in 2011, Libya remains riven with instability and seemingly intractable conflicts. NATO’s failure, following the ouster of Qaddafi, to develop a stabilization plan that could contain the conflict and assist with a transition process, has helped create an environment in which the United States and its European allies, to say nothing of Libya’s neighbors, face serious spill-over threats such as a wave of refugees, drug and arms trafficking, and the emergence of another branch of ISIS.

What options are available to address the situation? In the absence of a unified European strategy to address the Libyan crisis, one possible avenue for stabilization would be for the United States to engage in a limited military intervention. This would primarily aim to achieve stability in and around Tripoli in order to support the UN-backed government and deter spoilers, particularly in the east of the country, that may seek to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. However, another western military intervention would likely be neither straightforward nor welcomed by Libyans.

Rather, the United States should seek to empower a decentralization process in Libya that can strengthen local governance, build local resilience, and broadly contribute to peace. Decentralization, or the devolution of authority to the local level, has tangible advantages in Libya. First, international development organizations are already working on projects in Libya that aim to strengthen municipal councils and build trust between local authorities and communities. These efforts are particularly important given the political instability emanating from national fragmentation and the existence of multiple competing governments.

Further, decentralization efforts would neither threaten nor be made irrelevant by an eventual resolution to the conflict. The development of local capacity by empowering municipalities to respond to the needs of their constituents would build confidence in governing institutions and provide individuals with legitimate and accountable mechanisms through which to address grievances.

Moreover, a US strategy focused concurrently on decentralization and continued pressure for a negotiated settlement at the international and national levels could draw expertise from all elements of the US government. A whole of government approach – one that leverages US assistance for educational development, conflict resolution, economic management, service delivery, and security provision – is needed to help stabilize Libya and could be instituted at the local and municipal levels. As part of this approach, the United States should coordinate with the European Union and European allies that have an interest in the stabilization of Libya, such as Italy. The European Union is already doing work focused on strengthening local governance in Libya. A coordinated US-EU approach to capacity building could enhance these efforts.

This strategy of local capacity building, in concert with international diplomatic pressure, could, if successful, provide a long-sought model for a more responsible US role in ameliorating conflicts elsewhere. In Syria, for example, local councils in liberated areas have played a crucial role in the provision of social and administrative services. The United States, working collaboratively with NGOs and the private sector, could help further strengthen these local institutions.

In such protracted conflicts, the utility of military intervention by the United States is doubtful at best. Yet diplomatic efforts remain hampered and complicated by the simultaneous civil and international nature of these conflicts. Rather than take a backseat, the United States can contribute to peacebuilding by supporting capacity building and, eventually, reconstruction at the local level that sets the stage ahead of an eventual resolution.