The Global Fragility Act (GFA), passed by Congress and signed into law in 2019, requires the State Department, USAID, and other agencies to put in place for the first time a comprehensive strategy to address state fragility, violent conflict, and extremism, relying on best practices that are key to more effective and integrated U.S. policy. This report focuses on six key themes in the legislation, drawing on the expertise of leading peacebuilding and development experts to help generate practical solutions for advancing the GFA.

Introduction

Addressing state fragility and violent conflict is one of the central challenges of the modern era. Violent conflicts have risen in number, duration, and intensity since 1990, spurring the spread of violent extremism and one of the largest displacement crises in human history, causing untold human suffering. As a result, the international community has coalesced around the need for new approaches to reduce conflict’s underlying drivers and increase resiliency to shocks. In the United States, this consensus has culminated in the Global Fragility Act (GFA), an ambitious measure signed into law in late 2019 that aims to overhaul the way the United States engages in countries vulnerable to conflict—especially in fragile states, where the social contract between citizens and the state is severed, and societies are fragmented and prone to violence. If successfully implemented, this new framework could begin to transform U.S. policy and assistance in fragile countries and provide an alternative to the multibillion-dollar state-building efforts that have been underway for far too long in places like Afghanistan and Iraq and have few results to show for it.
 
The Global Fragility Act requires the State Department, U.S. Agency for International Development, and other federal agencies to launch a comprehensive strategy to address fragility and reduce the risks of violence and conflict by targeting its drivers. To better align U.S. policy instruments in support of prevention—including foreign assistance, diplomatic engagement, and security sector assistance—the legislation sets out the roles and responsibilities of each U.S. agency, creating new mechanisms for oversight and coordination. The bill includes unprecedented new congressional authorities to allow policymakers to implement a ten-year preventive strategy that can adapt in response to evolving local conditions, based on close consultations between the legislative and executive branches. The legislation requires agencies to test their initial efforts in a small set of countries and regions, and to report back to Congress every two years not just on their progress, but also on organizational learning.
 
Adhering to the principles embedded in the GFA—including closer U.S. interagency coordination, deeper integration and burden sharing with international partners on the ground, and more nimble policy and programs that are responsive to in-country conditions—has been an age-old challenge in conflict environments. Executing this new mandate presents enormous difficulties. We should expect setbacks and slow progress. Achieving results will require tackling the bureaucratic, political, and operational obstacles to more fit-for-purpose policies and programs in fragile states, and reinvesting in U.S. civilian capabilities, which have been severely depleted. Because this is not a challenge that the United States can or should tackle alone, it will require reinvigorating U.S. leadership and committing to building coalitions of partners to get the job done.
 
At the same time, this agenda has gained added urgency in the context of COVID-19 because the fallout from the pandemic will stress countries’ social fabrics in ways that could deepen fragility and exacerbate protracted crises and have devastating consequences for both the world’s most vulnerable populations and international peace and security. Just as donors seek to respond to rapidly increasing health, food, and other emergency needs from the pandemic, it will be critical that this aid is in line with the new strategy and does not inadvertently stoke new tensions.
 
This report seeks to generate practical policy solutions for overcoming the obstacles to implementing a new U.S. conflict-prevention strategy and country plans. Each article grapples with one of six key themes highlighted in the legislation: 

  • What new risks and opportunities does the current global strategic environment present for policymakers charged with developing and implementing a new strategy? 
  • Why is local ownership of conflict prevention initiatives and inclusion so important, and how can the U.S. government maximize country ownership? 
  • What accountability challenges confront policymakers in these countries, and what mechanisms can help to overcome them? 
  • What solutions exist to overcome the age-old challenge of interagency coordination in fragile settings, including across both development and security assistance programs? 
  •  What are the benefits of aligning U.S. efforts with those of other international partners, and what are the most effective modalities of such coordination? 
  • Given the scope of the challenge of defining and measuring progress toward peace in fluid and volatile places, how should policymakers think about monitoring, evaluation and learning?

About the Report

In May, June, and July of 2020, the United States Institute of Peace convened a series of consultations with experts on implementation of the 2019 Global Fragility Act, which called for an interagency initiative to stabilize conflict-affected areas and prevent violence globally. This report examines the key lessons the peacebuilding field has learned about how to support vulnerable countries in preventing conflict and violence, and offers practical policy solutions for how to overcome the obstacles that have plagued past U.S. efforts. It assesses the current global strategic environment for preventing internal conflicts and addresses how to promote local ownership and inclusion, ensure accountability, align U.S. activities across diplomacy and development, establish mechanisms for closer international coordination, and measure progress.

About the Authors

This report was compiled and edited by Corinne Graff, a senior advisor at the United States Institute of Peace and, in 2018 and 2019, a senior policy advisor to and member of the staff of the Task Force on Violent Extremism in Fragile States. The report consists of essays by Susanna P. Campbell, Martha Crenshaw, Amy Potter Czajkowski, Pamina Firchow, Kathleen Kuehnast, Jon Kurtz, Amanda Long, Daniel R. Mahanty, Jonathan Papoulidis, Paul Perrin, Olga Petryniak, Annie Pforzheimer, Patrick W. Quirk, Sarah Rose, Mareike Schomerus, Conor Seyle, and Jodi Vittori.
 

Related Publications

11 Things to Know: Afghanistan on the Eve of Withdrawal

11 Things to Know: Afghanistan on the Eve of Withdrawal

Thursday, June 17, 2021

By: Andrew Wilder; Scott Worden

U.S. and NATO troops are rapidly executing President Biden’s policy of a complete withdrawal of American troops and contactors supporting the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) by a deadline of September 11. Based on the rate of progress, the last American soldier could depart before the end of July. The decision to withdraw without a cease-fire or a framework for a political agreement between the Taliban and the government caught Afghans and regional countries by surprise. The Taliban have capitalized on the moment to seize dozens of districts and project an air of confidence and victory.  

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes; Fragility & Resilience

How Missing Data Can Make the Global Fragility Strategy Work

How Missing Data Can Make the Global Fragility Strategy Work

Thursday, May 20, 2021

By: Michael F. Harsch; Calin Trenkov-Wermuth, Ph.D.

As glaring inequalities in the global recovery from COVID-19 become clearer, the U.N. has warned of growing risks of political tensions and conflict in many countries. This poses a daunting challenge to U.S. foreign policy and presents a test for the new Global Fragility Strategy (GFS), which aims to reduce state fragility and break cycles of violence in critical regions. What the GFS lacks, however, is a clear “theory of success” that explains why and how proposed actions will lead to desired outcomes in fragile states. A new capacity-based approach is needed to identify fragile states with high potential for effective engagement, particularly security sector reform (SSR).

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Fragility & Resilience; Justice, Security & Rule of Law

The Intertwined Futures of Climate Action, Fragility and Peacebuilding

The Intertwined Futures of Climate Action, Fragility and Peacebuilding

Thursday, April 15, 2021

By: Anthony Navone

Crises are often described narrowly; clearly differentiated by the aspect of society they impact, such as the economy or national security. But the COVID pandemic and looming climate crisis have shown that lines distinguishing one crisis from another aren’t as distinct as they may seem, and that underlying issues like COVID can impact a number of sectors simultaneously. Navigating the intersection of health, economic, governance and humanitarian issues has become the defining challenge of the pandemic response...

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Economics & Environment; Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Fragility & Resilience

U.S., Iraqi Envoys Call for Continued Partnership 18 Years After Saddam’s Fall

U.S., Iraqi Envoys Call for Continued Partnership 18 Years After Saddam’s Fall

Thursday, March 25, 2021

By: Adam Gallagher

Eighteen years after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iraq is still in the midst of a rocky transition, beset by governance, economic, social and security challenges. With the Biden administration setting its sights on sweeping portfolio of domestic and foreign policy issues, some fear the United States will lose focus on Iraq. But in remarks on Tuesday, the top American diplomat in Baghdad vowed continued American engagement. Ahead of a pivotal year for Iraq, “The United States is resolute in its commitment to supporting [a] stable, sovereign, democratic and prosperous Iraq,” said U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Matthew Tueller.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Democracy & Governance; Fragility & Resilience

View All Publications