The Clintons have both been accused of engaging in nation-building in the Middle East, Africa, and the Caribbean. This is a very idiotic accusation because nation-building looks completely different. It’s all about manufacturing a sense of common puprpose, inventing a shared history, engineering emotional attachment, and creating meaningful symbols. None of this was done by either Clinton or by Obama.
Instead, they tried to engage in state-building. This is a lot easier than nation-building because creating functioning institutions of a state requires no passionate emotional attachment. And even at this much easier task they all failed, every single time. Because it’s not something anybody can impose from the outside. People will figure it out on their own. Or not.
Confusing nation-building with state-building is a sign of sloppy, lazy thinking. Language deserves respect and loving care. Let’s not treat it with contempt that it doesn’t merit.
Clarissa's Blog 
\ state-building. This is a lot easier than nation-building
I would not say that. Won’t state-building fail, if people aren’t interested in nation-building which creates the environment of mutual trust that’s necessary for those functioning institutions?
LikeLike
Of course, a state will run into problems if it doesn’t engage in the more lengthy and complicated process of constructing a nation. One example is Ukraine. There has been a functioning state since 1991 but nation-building was sorely lacking until very recently. And we’ve seen the results of that. Only after Putin invaded, did Ukrainians seriously begin to nation-build. Of course, it would have been better to have started it earlier but at least they got to doing it now.
LikeLike