ISSUE 46: JUNE-AUGUST 2007
network of research and training centres/programmes
FRONT PAGE | ARCHIVE |
Examining the shortcomings of the 'liberal peace' model
On May 3-4, the UNU Peace and Governance Programme organized a project workshop in Sarajevo, in cooperation with the University of Sarajevo, in connection with a project which examines the record and challenges of peacebuilding in post-conflict or conflict-prone societies.
A key focus of the project is to explore – and perhaps challenge – the values and assumptions upon which international actors base their peacebuilding approaches and activities. Although international peacebuilding activities have a reasonably good record in containing armed conflict, many analysts have argued that they have been much less successful in resolving the underlying sources of conflict – or even that they exacerbate these underlying conflicts. An emerging debate is exploring if the collapse or endangerment of peace processes in recent years – in cases such as Burundi, Rwanda, East Timor, and Afghanistan – might be in part explained by the values of international peace processes which follow the model of the ‘liberal peace’. The liberal peace embraces democracy; human rights; market values and the integration of societies into globalization; self determination; and the idea of the state and citizenship. Most internationally sponsored peace processes can be characterized by these values, which are assumed to be integral to modern, stable societies. This assumption also reflects a broader political wave of opinion. A number of states have placed a great deal of national foreign policy emphasis upon the promotion of democracy as a means for spreading peace within societies and internationally. In some circles, the liberal peace is regarded as a panacea.
However, the liberal peace, and the manner in which it is promoted in fragile and divided societies, is problematic. Democracy (in terms of liberal democracy); human rights (especially when emphasizing only civil and political rights); market values; the integration of societies into globalization; self determination; and the idea of the state are not necessarily universal values. Moreover, the liberal peace is not necessarily appropriate for conflicted or divided societies. Indeed, democracy and the market are arguably adversarial or even conflictual forces – taken for granted in stable Western societies which have strong institutions, but not necessarily appropriate in volatile societies which do not enjoy stable institutions.
Peacebuilding and post-conflict peacebuilding are not normatively neutral concepts, and this raises important questions concerning the role of international organizations in attempting to end civil conflict. In some circumstances, some of the values and approaches may be at odds with the attainment of sustainable peace, when, for example, they promote a neo-liberal economic agenda which may exacerbate social/economic tensions; or where democracy promotion exacerbates political conflict and social sectarian divisions. As Roland Paris – a participant in the Sarajevo workshop – argued, “the process of political and economic liberalization is inherently tumultuous: It can exacerbate social tensions and undermine the prospects for stable peace in the fragile conditions that typically exist in countries just emerging from civil war.” Bosnian participants at the workshop testified that holding elections in that country only six months after the end of armed conflict has left a legacy of nationalist and ethnic politics – indeed, it has legitimized the de facto partition of the country.
The workshop addressed a range of other challenges related to peacebuilding, including the question of how to measure the “success” of peacebuilding, the difficulties of combining assistance with coercion in cases such as Bosnia and Afghanistan, the question of whether partition – “hard” or “soft” – between different communities should form a part of the solution, whether legal or de facto suspension of sovereignty should be considered, and the tension which exists between top-down approaches to achieving security/stability (based upon negotiations with local power holders, as occurred in Bosnia) and more community-focused approaches which cultivates moderate peace leaders.
The project will produce a policy brief
and an edited volume.
MORE INFORMATION
© 2007 United Nations University