For stabilization

Abstract

This article is a rejoinder to Roger Mac Ginty's polemic (Against Stabilization) arguing that, whilst the author is correct in identifying the inconsistencies in the concept and practice of stabilization, it is a viable concept. This article draws on field research from Afghanistan and Nepal to demonstrate that within stabilization's philosophical pedigree and practical application are components that can articulate a form of sub-national international intervention that can address political threats. Further this form of intervention is morally defensible and can promote control rather than constrict it. Stabilization is a new term that has been applied to many old practices, but it has been inconsistently used suggesting that it is both a practice for national level interventions and those directed at a sub-national level. This has been unhelpful as it confuses stabilization activity with other forms of intervention. The article explores the threats that stabilization can address, the stability that is being sought after and the manner in which interventions can be approached in order to address the threats. It suggests there is a space in which stabilization can operate, pragmatically engaging in the complexities of political conflict in states under extreme tension.