Liberal Statebuilding, the Key for Sustainable Peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

Liberal Statebuilding,

the Key for Sustainable Peace

in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

Master Thesis

Name: Jorinke van der Vegt

Address: Midden-Eng 40, 6721 GX Bennekom Phone number: 06-20507266

Master Thesis: International Relations and International Organization

Specialization: International Security

I hereby declare that this thesis, “Liberal Statebuilding, the Key for Sustainable Peace in the

Democratic Republic of Congo?”, is my own work and my own effort and that it has not been

accepted anywhere else for the award of any other degree or diploma. Where sources of information have been used, they have been acknowledged.

Name: Jorinke van der Vegt

Signature:

Date: December 10, 2014

Sources illustrations front cover:

UN Peacekeeping Organization. https://www.facebook.com/unpeacekeeping?fref=ts RFI. http://www1.rfi.fr/actuen/articles/106/article_1997.asp

Acknowledgement

This Master thesis is the final step towards my Masters degree. The last few months, I have lived a rollercoaster of thoughts about the thesis. During my studies, I have specialized in the strategy and results of peacekeeping operations. This thesis covers many subjects I treated the last few years. I noticed while writing papers and essays about peacekeeping, that there are often discrepancies between the idealistic objectives of peacekeeping operations and the execution of the operations to achieve these objectives. In this thesis, I have analyzed the theory behind the peacekeeping strategy and the problems that erase with the execution of the strategy. This was a very interesting process.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement ... 3

List of Abbreviations ... 5

Introduction ... 6

Chapter 1 Sustainable Peace ... 10

Solving the roots of conflict ... 13

Parameters for sustainable peace ... 15

Conclusion ... 19

Chapter 2 The Statebuilding Debate ... 21

The debate between liberal and illiberal statebuilding... 23

Liberal statebuilding the roots of conflict ... 32

Liberal statebuilding and the Pillars of Peace ... 33

Chapter 3 UN Peacekeeping Strategy ... 37

Categories of UN peacekeeping missions ... 37

The development of the UN peacebuilding approach and peacekeeping operations ... 38

UN peacekeeping missions aimed at sustainable peace ... 41

UN peacekeeping and the Pillars of Peace... 43

Chapter 4 UN Peacekeeping in the Democratic Republic in Congo ... 50

The situation before the deployment of MONUC ... 51

Mandates MONUC and MONUSCO and the Pillars of Peace ... 53

Contribution of MONUC and MONUSCO to sustainable peace ... 59

Final Conclusion ... 69

Bibliography ... 72

List of Abbreviations

ADFL Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of the Congo-Zaire

DDR Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration

DDRRR Disarmament, Demobilization, Repatriation, Reintegration or Resettlement

DRC Democratic Republic of Congo

EU European Union

FARDC Forces Armée de la République Démocratique du Congo

FDLR Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda

GDP Gross Domestic Product

M23 Mouvement du 23 mars

MLC Congo Liberation Movement

MONUC United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

MONUSCO United Nations Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

RC Resident Coordinator

RCD Congolese Rally for Democracy

RCD-G RCD-Goma

SADC Southern African Development Community

UN United Nations

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNAMSIL United Nations Assistance Mission in Sierra Leone

Introduction

On 20 November 2014, two weeks before writing, a massacre took place in eastern Congo which killed hundred civilians, mostly women and children. The United Nations Security Council condemned in the strongest terms these acts against civilians as well as the ongoing attacks on peacekeepers. Members of the Council demanded the DRC government and the United Nations Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO), to “permanently reduce the treats against civilians, immediately redouble efforts to provide

proactive protection of civilians and neutralize armed groups still operating in eastern DRC”.1

Until present, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has been suffering five decades of

violent conflict. More than four million people have been killed in Congo wars.2 The

Congolese population suffers not only from the killing but also from the sexual violence to

women and the recruitment of child soldiers.3 The law enforcement of the government of the

DRC is not capable to protect its citizens from these cruelties. Sometimes even soldiers of the

army of the DRC commit these crimes.4 As a consequence millions of people are displaced

which cause chaotic situations throughout the country.5

In 1996 and 1998, two large-scale wars started in the DRC.6 In July 1999, the Lusaka

Ceasefire Agreement was signed by the DRC and five regional states; Angola, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Rwanda, and Uganda. Following on this ceasefire, the Security Council established the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

(MONUC) for the observation of the ceasefire and the disengagement of armed groups and for maintenance of liaison with the parties to the ceasefire agreement. During the years, the

1 _{‘DR Congo: Security Council condemns massacres of civilians, attacks on peacekeepers,’ UN News Centre, last} modified November 26, 2014, accessed December 3, 2014,

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=49455#.VH9mXnviOb8; ‘Great Lakes Envoys outraged by spate of civilian massacres in eastern DR Congo,’ UN News Centre, last modified December 2, 2014, accessed December 3, 2014, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=49489#.VH9kynviOb8.

2

Emizet François Kisangani, Civil Wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo 1960-2010 (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2012), 1.

3

‘Annual report 2013. The Democratic Republic of the Congo,’ Amnesty International, accessed September 8, 2014, http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/democratic-republic-congo/report-2013.

4

‘Thirtieth report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,’ United Nations Security Council, December 4, 2009, accessed September 2, 2014, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/625/89/PDF/N0962589.pdf?OpenElement.

5

‘Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,’ United Nations Security Council, February 15, 2013, accessed September 2, 2014, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N13/225/90/PDF/N1322590.pdf?OpenElement.

6

mandate of MONUC expanded. On 1 July 2010, MONUC was followed up by MONUSCO.7 This peacekeeping operation was assigned to support the Congolese government in the following objectives: to improve the capacity of the government of the DRC and to

consolidate the State authority through the deployment of Congolese civil administration, the

police, territorial administration and rule of law institutions in particular.8

In 2009, the United Nations (UN) began to develop an overarching strategy for the UN system in the DRC. The objective was to set up a detailed strategy for MONUC to handover

tasks in the western part of the country.9 However nowadays, MONUSCO still not succeeds

to withdraw its support and handover tasks because the situation remains fragile. On the contrary, with resolution 2147, the mandate of MONUSCO has been extended again until 31 March 2015 and MONUSCO is encouraged to maximize force in the implementation of the mandate. And although the resolution expressed the need for a clear exit strategy, it also

stated that the development of an exit strategy depends on the security situation of the DRC.10

Since the current erupts of violence in eastern Congo threatens the security situation of the DRC, it is unlikely that MONUSCO shall withdraw its support in 2015. This example of a country in despair raises questions in the domain of international aid organizations, but also in the academic world. How can sustainable peace be build in countries like the DRC?

Johan Galtung is internationally referred to as ‘the father of peace studies’.11 He defines

peacebuilding as finding structures that remove causes of wars and offer alternatives.12 The

UN has engaged itself in peacebuilding and has based its approach on the definition of Galtung. The UN argues that peacebuilding structures should be created in order to promote sustainable peace. This can be achieved by addressing the root causes of violent conflict and by supporting the capacities of the state for the management of peace and conflict

7

“MONUSCO Background,” MONUSCO United Nations Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, accessed June 17, 2014, http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/monusco/background.shtml. 8

“Resolution 1925,” United Nations Security Council, May 28, 2010, accessed June 16, 2014, http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1925%282010%29.

9

‘Twenty-ninth report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,’ United Nations Security Council, September 18, 2009, accessed September 2, 2014, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/505/87/PDF/N0950587.pdf?OpenElement.

10

‘Resolution 2147 (2014),’ United Nations Security Council, March 28, 2014, accessed September 8, 2014, http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2147%282014%29.

11

‘Johan Galtung- the Father of Peace Studies,’ Masterpeace, last modified January 10, 2013, accessed September 17, 2014,

http://www.masterpeace.org/blogs/post/_13_01_10_johan_galtung___the_father_of_peace_studies. 12

resolution.13 Since the end of the Cold War, UN peacekeeping operations have become more

involved in the peacebuilding process by assisting in the development of a liberal state.14 The

liberal state can be characterized by the elements of democracy, rule of law, economic

development and human rights.15

This statebuilding approach has been criticized on many points. The most important criticism

is pointed at the great level of international interference in domestic affairs.16 Would liberal

statebuilding contribute to sustainable peace if the population does not support the idea of a liberal state? And is the liberal statebuilding approach the only way to build sustainable peace? Although there is international consensus that statebuilding is primary focus in the field of security and development, both practitioners and researchers argue that the results of international assistance to statebuilding are discouraging. According to them, there are no

examples of success from which one could learn.17

This debate about the contribution of liberal statebuilding to sustainable peace has led to the main question of this thesis: to what extent do UN peacekeeping operations focused on liberal

statebuilding contribute to sustainable peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

The sub questions are:

1. What are the conditions for sustainable peace?

2. What is the theoretical debate on liberal statebuilding and what are the parameters for

this approach?

3. What is the UN framework of peacekeeping missions and how is it intended to meet

the parameters of sustainable peace?

4. To what extent did the peacekeeping missions in the Democratic Republic of Congo

have a statebuilding component and to what extent did this contribute to sustainable peace?

13

United Nations. UN Peacebuilding: an orientation. Peacebuilding Support Office. September 2010. P. 5. 14

Timothy Sisk and David Chandler, The Routledge Handbook of International Statebuilding (London: Routledge, 2013), xix-xx.

15

Oliver P. Richmond and Jason Franks, Liberal Peace Transitions. Between Statebuilding and Peacebuilding (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009), 4.

16

David Chandler, International Statebuilding. The Rise of Post-liberal Governance (London and New York: Routledge, 2010), 27-29.

The case of the DRC is interesting because the situation is severe and UN peacekeeping operations have been active in the country for fifteen years now. The case is characteristic of the changing UN peacekeeping strategy and of the dilemmas that peacekeeping operations face. Therefore, the case study of the DRC can be presumed as a precedent for UN

peacekeeping operations in other counties.

This thesis may be a valuable contribution to the academic debate on the liberal statebuilding approach because in this thesis liberal statebuilding is tested in theory as well in practice. Furthermore, the illiberal criticisms on the liberal statebuilding approach will be considered. The thesis will also contribute to the debate on sustainable peace. The question how to achieve sustainable peace will be discussed. Moreover, this thesis may contribute to the development of peacebuilding strategies in the DRC. The peacebuilding approach that is focused on liberal statebuilding will be tested in this thesis.

In order to answer the question, the first chapter will explain the concept of sustainable peace. It will explain how the roots of conflict can be addressed and how the parameters of

sustainable peace can be described. The second chapter will elaborate on the debate between liberal and illiberal statebuilding. Furthermore, it will analyze to what extent liberal

statebuilding contributes to sustainable peace theoretically. The third chapter will analyze the UN peacekeeping strategy and it will try to find an answer on how UN peacekeeping missions are focused on liberal peacebuilding and how they can contribute to sustainable peace

Chapter 1 Sustainable Peace

Humankind has always been struggling to find ways for forever ending war and settling lasting peace. Unfortunately, nowadays people still suffer from the consequences of violent conflict and a solution for world peace has not been found. Also in the academic domain, theorists are still discussing the conditions for sustainable peace. This chapter will elaborate on the theoretical debate on sustainable peace. There are two perspectives of peace; positive peace and negative peace. Negative peace is the absence of violence and fear of violence. Positive peace can be defined as the attitudes, institutions and structures that lead to a more

peaceful society.18 The perspective of positive peace can be seen as the perspective that build

lasting peace because it is aimed at creating structures that prevent violent conflict and encourage cooperative relations between groups in society. This is the perspective that this research will use for analyzing sustainable peace. Sustainable peace is the objective of peacebuilding. A peacebuilding approach should be aimed at transforming a structure of violence into a structure of cooperation. However, to be able to create positive peace, violence should be reduced and conflict should be solved. Therefore, the limitation of violence should

be initiated together with the settlement of projects for positive peace.19 Furthermore, it is not

possible to build a structure of cooperation without solving the roots of conflict. These roots are defined as the incompatibilities between the parties of conflict. This chapter will elaborate on the roots of conflict and on how they can be addressed. It will also set up parameters for measuring sustainable peace in order to be able to measure to what extent UN peacekeeping operations with a focus on liberal statebuilding can contribute to sustainable peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

But before this chapter starts with elaborating on solving the roots of conflict and before it sets up the parameters, the concepts of (liberal) statebuilding, sustainable peace,

peacebuilding, and peacekeeping missions will be defined.

Statebuilding

The concept of statebuilding is the antithesis of state fragility or weakness. Statebuilding does not have a clear comprehensive understanding of the scope of the concept and of the policy it should present. The engagement of the international community in statebuilding started after

18

Institute for Economics and Peace, Pillars of Peace. Understanding the key attitudes and institutions that underpin peaceful societies (Sydney: Institute for Economics and Peace, September 2013), 1.

the end of the Cold War with the aim to build internal peace in vulnerable countries. Nowadays, the statebuilding field is still emerging and there continues to be challenges for

global actors in trying to build peace.20 In the statebuilding debate there are different points of

view. Some authors argue for the creation of the structure of statebuilding which is based on examples of Western countries. This is also called the liberal statebuilding approach because it is based on the creation of the liberal type of state that is most common in Europe and North-America. The liberal state includes elements of democratization, the rule of law, human

rights, free and globalized markets, and neo-liberal economic development.21 This type of

statebuilding protects individual autonomy and dignity against possible coercion of the

government.22 Other authors criticize this liberal approach and plea for a more realist

approach of statebuilding. The realist approach is aimed at only strengthening the monopoly of power of the government. This is also called the illiberal statebuilding approach. I will elaborate more on the statebuilding debate in chapter two of this thesis.

Sustainable Peace

Sustainable peace can be defined as a lasting peace that brings true security.23 This means that

sustainable peace is a structure in a state which prevents the use of violence between groups and oppression by the government or dominant group in society. It is a structure in which

cooperation and the promotion of social justice and well-being rule social life.24 As it is

written previously in this chapter, it is possible to analyze sustainable peace through the perspectives of negative and positive peace. This thesis will use the positive peace perspective.

Peacebuilding

The terms statebuilding and peacebuilding are often confusing because much analysis associate peacebuilding with statebuilding. But is statebuilding the same as peacebuilding? Since the end of the Cold War, the international community started to engage in conflict

20

Timothy Sisk and David Chandler, The Routledge Handbook of International Statebuilding (London: Routledge, 2013), xix-xx.

21

Oliver P. Richmond and Jason Franks, Liberal Peace Transitions. Between Statebuilding and Peacebuilding (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009), 4.

22

Fareed Zakaria, The Future of Freedom. Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (New York: W.W. Nortoon, 2003), 19.

23

Satya Brata Das, “Sustainable Peace. Who pays the price?,” in Building Sustainable Peace, ed. Thomas F. Keating and Andy W. Knight (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2005), 270-271.

24

resolution through statebuilding.25 In this context, it can be assumed that peacebuilding is statebuilding with the aim to build sustainable peace. Johan Galtung is seen as a leading

theorist in the peacebuilding debate.26 He defines peacebuilding as a self-supporting conflict

resolution in which incompatible interests of the parties need to be eliminated.27 In order to

achieve this, third parties need to come in as mediators and arbitrators.28 Galtung’s theory of

peacebuilding is focused on the settlement of positive peace by setting up a structure of peace that is founded in the removal of the causes of wars and offer alternatives to war in situations

where wars might occur.29 His argument to create structures which promote sustainable peace

is adopted in the peacebuilding approach of the UN.30 The UN peacebuilding approach covers

all the activities that are meant to maintain peace and security worldwide. These activities are: conflict prevention and mediation, peacemaking, peace enforcement, peacekeeping and

peacebuilding. According to the UN, these activities should be seen as mutually reinforcing.31

Therefore, UN peacekeeping missions are part of the coordinative UN peacebuilding

approach. Chapter three will elaborate on the content of the UN peacebuilding approach, the responsibilities of this approach that are delegated to peacekeeping operations and it will analyze to what extent the UN approach is focused on liberal statebuilding.

Peacekeeping missions

This thesis will only treat the peacekeeping operations performed by the UN because the UN is the most experienced institution in delivering military forces and has the most widely accepted authority and legitimacy to do this. Furthermore, it has unified and integrated the

civilian and military chains of command in its operations.32 UN peacekeeping operations are

aimed at containing violence and preventing it from escalating war; limiting the intensity, geographical spread and duration of war once it has broken out; consolidating ceasefire and

25

Richmond and Franks, Liberal Peace Transitions, 4. 26

“Peacebuilding and the United Nations,” United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office, accessed April 8, 2014, http://www.un.org/en/peacebuilding/pbso/pbun.shtml.

27

Johan Galtung, “Three approaches to peace: peacekeeping, peacemaking and peacebuilding,” In Peace, War and Defence. Essays in Peace Research Volume II, ed. Christian Ejlers (Copenhagen: International Peace Research Institute Oslo, 1976), 290-297.

28

Galtung, Three approaches, 290-297. 29

Ibidem, 298-304. 30

“Peacebuilding and the United Nations,” United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office, accessed April 8, 2014, http://www.un.org/en/peacebuilding/pbso/pbun.shtml.

31

“Peace and Security,” Unites Nations Peacekeeping, accessed April 23, 2014. http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/peace.shtml.

creating space for reconstruction after the end of a war.33 Peacekeeping is mainly aimed at settling negative peace because it contributes to ban violence and the fear of violence from society. It has been stated earlier that the absence of violence is essential for the success of liberal statebuilding and therefore peacekeeping missions are important for the statebuilding

process. Moreover, peacekeeping missions are also involved in early liberal statebuilding.34

This is also shown in some of the tasks of peacekeeping operations. For example, they have to facilitate the political process; protect civilians; support the organization of elections; promote

and protect human rights and assist in restoring the rule of law.35 These tasks all seem to

contribute to the creation of the liberal state. Chapter three of this thesis will further elaborate on the peacekeeping approach of the UN.

Solving the roots of conflict

The question how to settle sustainable peace is not easy to answer. The settlement of peace is

dependent on the behavior of actors in open systems36 and therefore it is difficult to achieve.

According to Johan Galtung, sustainable peace can be addressed by solving the roots of

conflict. The roots of conflict are defined by the incompatible interests between the parties.37

If grievances are managed and incompatibilities solved, it is possible to settle sustainable

peace. Otherwise, the conflict will become protracted.38 The problem is that it is difficult to

define the incompatibilities and to set up parameters to determine when these

incompatibilities are solved. The following paragraphs will consider these dilemma’s.

There are three approaches to analyze the incompatibilities of the parties to the conflict, which

are outlined by Peter Wallensteen.39 These approaches are called: conflict dynamic, rational,

strategic calculations and the needs-based origins.40

The conflict dynamics are described by Johan Galtung and Finn Tschudi in Crafting Peace:

on the Psychology of the TRANSCEND Approach. They explain the roots of conflict as

33

Oliver Ramsbotham, Tom Woodhouse and Hugh Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution. The prevention, management and transformation of deadly conflicts (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005), 133.

34

‘Peace and Security,’ United Nations Peacekeeping, accessed March 12, 2014, http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/peace.shtml.

35

United Nations Peacekeeping, ‘Peace and Security.’ 36

John W. Burton, Resolving Deep-Rooted Conflict. A Handbook (Lanham: University Press of America, 1987), 17-18.

37

Johan Galtung, “Three approaches to peace: peacekeeping, peacemaking and peacebuilding,” In Peace, War and Defence. Essays in Peace Research Volume II, ed. Christian Ejlers (Copenhagen: International Peace Research Institute Oslo, 1976), 290-297.

38

Peter Wallersteen, Understanding Conflict Resolution (London: Sage Publications, 2007), 127. 39 _{Wallersteen, Understanding Conflict Resolution, 32.}

40

incompatible goals which cause frustration. This frustration results in a range of reactions. This range of reactions can be characterized by: attitudes (cognitive and emotive), behavior (physical and verbal), and contradiction. This is also called the conflict triangle. According to Johan Galtung and Finn Tschudi, conflict resolution should start by resolving the

contradiction which is defined as the incompatibility between the parties of the conflict. This incompatibility determines the root issues that cause the attitude and the behavior of the parties. The key for solving these root issues is the stimulation of creativity that encourages

the conflict parties to develop new perspectives that are not incompatible.41 The creation of

new common goals and agreements might shift old incompatibilities and could transform the

conflict into a constructive and shared effort to achieve peace.42 It is difficult to break the

dynamics of conflict and to change the flow of events in a way that will turn escalation into

de-escalation and polarization into positive interaction.43 This can best be done by

negotiations between the parties because negotiations can build confidence in the military field but also in social, cultural, economic and other areas. This might result in a change of the

conflict dynamics.44 This approach is very useful for understanding the dynamics of conflict

and acting towards these, but it does not explain why conflicts start nor elaborate on the exact

roots of conflict. Therefore we also need to look at other approaches.45

Another approach is focused on rational calculations. It argues that the conflict parties make calculations to consider costs and benefits for ending the war and for using violence to serve their interests. The parties also make calculations of starting a conflict and defending itself against an attack. These calculations need to be revised after time when nobody has won. Considering these calculations, timing is very important for conflict resolution. The parties that still believe they have anything to gain by warfare will spoil or slow down the peace

process.46 Author John W. Burton offers a solution to approach these rational calculations by

differentiating between interests that are negotiable and the underlying values and motivations that can be bargained away. The conflict parties should be assisted by third parties to deduce what alterations in structures, institutions and policies are required to enable the fulfillment of their interests. Furthermore, he argues that it is important to consider and analyze the motives

41

Johan Galtung and Finn Tschudi, “Crafting Peace: on the Psychology of the TRANSCEND Approach,” In Searching for Peace: the Road to TRANSCEND, ed. Carl G. Jacobsen and Johan Galtung (London: Pluto Press, 2000), 206-208.

42

and values, the perception of these, and the confusions between interests, tactics and goals.47 This approach of solving rational calculations that form the foundation of violent behavior, makes clear that there are deeper roots that determine the formulation of interest. These are the grievances of unsatisfied needs that may be constructed through ages of time and are difficult to solve. The needs-based approach elaborates on this dilemma.

The needs-based approach argues that conflict is about the frustration of unsatisfied needs

which are out of reach for a group.48 It aims at locating unmet needs,49 but does not give a

clear strategy to meet these needs. In civil wars, the conflict parties are rooted in the same

state and therefore build their incompatible goals on internal grievances.50 These grievances

are based on the pursuit of certain human needs, like identity, security of identity groups, political participation and distributive justice and recognition. The grievances of these human needs do not lead to a win-lose situation because the resources for these needs can be

distributed without depriving others.51 But human needs may also concern economic

participation, economic interaction or power relations,52 and these needs are more

complicated to satisfy.

In conclusion, these approaches address the deep incompatibilities of the conflict parties. It explains the roots of conflict and how the behavior of the actors can be influenced in order to build sustainable peace. If the structure of peace is in the interests of the conflict parties, the dynamics of conflict can be changed and the rational choices will be different. However, in order to succeed, the new structure should meet the basic human needs of all the parties, because the dissatisfaction of these needs lay at the bottom of conflict. When this is reached, it is possible to create a structure of sustainable peace that encourages harmonious

cooperation instead of violent conflict.

Parameters for sustainable peace

This thesis will use parameters that are described in The Pillars for Peace Report by the Institute for Economics and Peace. This institute is dedicated to change the world’s focus to

47

John W. Burton, Resolving Deep-Rooted Conflict. A Handbook (Lanham: University Press of America, 1987), 23-24.

48

Wallersteen, Understanding Conflict Resolution, 36-39. 49

Ibidem, 41. 50

Ibidem, 123. 51

Burton, Resolving Deep-Rooted Conflict, 23. 52

positive peace that is achievable, tangible and measurable. It develops new conceptual frameworks to define peacefulness, provides metrics for measurement and connects peace,

business and prosperity in their definition of peacefulness.53 It may be possible that in the

future the described conditions for sustainable peace may be superseded by other conditions. However, the Institute for Economics and Peace is continuously improving their results for peace research and therefore we can assume that the conditions for peace written in The

Pillars for Peace Report are considered to be well-founded on recent studies. In this report,

the institute has defined eight Pillars of Peace that describe the factors that create peaceful societies. These pillars are:

- A well-functioning government

- A sound business environment

- An equitable distribution of resources

- An acceptance of the rights of others

- Good relations with neighbors

- Free flow of information

- A high level of human capital

- Low levels of corruption54

This framework for positive peace is quite new and might evolve in the years to come. The pillars are inter-dependent, which means that if one pillar weakens this will also weaken the other pillars. This also means that the pillars are interactive and that we cannot isolate factors in order to measure causality. This framework for positive peace should be seen as a system

which should be improved entirely in order to reach peace.55

53

“About IEP,” Institute for Economics and Peace, accessed August 5, 2014, http://economicsandpeace.org/. 54 _{Institute for Economics and Peace, Pillars of Peace, 1-2.}

55

Figure 1: The holistic framework of the Pillars of Peace.56

Well-functioning government can be divided into two domains. The first refers to the effectiveness of the government, its activities and the rule of law and the second to the extent to which the government shares the same vision as its citizens, it is accountable and allows its citizens to have a voice in decision making. The Institute for Economics and Peace analyzes this pillar at three points: Government Effectiveness, the Rule of Law, and Voice and Accountability. The Government Effectiveness can be measured by the balance of how the government raises taxation and how the public fund is spent. This is important for the peace process because government funding of services can encourage the community access to justice and can initiate infrastructure projects. Furthermore, the equality of the burden of

taxation is important for peace.57

The Rule of Law is about how power is exercised, how disputes are resolved and to what extent the government is separate and compliant of the legal system. This pillar is beneficial

for peace in the sense that community tension can be resolved without violence.58

Voice and Accountability can be defined as how strongly the citizens can influence and participate in the decision making process of the government. This might also include the

communication about public concerns through public consultation, voter surveys or

communication with business groups, unions or cooperatives.59

A Sound Business Environment is important for peace, because it provides employment which is necessary for taxation, productive use of human capital and the ability of individuals to access capital. The development of a business environment needs supporting institutions. These are formal and informal mechanisms providing interactions between business,

customers and wider society. Examples of formal business institutions are property rights, the firm’s rights and obligations and the definition of the process for starting a new business. Informal institutions are the accepted norms of operating a business, undertaking employment or exchanging goods. They define the socially accepted rules of behavior that is expected of

people with economic activities.60 A factor that is important for measuring the business

environment is the level of business sophistication and innovation. This describes the depth of

the industry’s network and its willingness to innovate.61

The equitable distribution of resources describes to what extent people are treated fairly and regardless of their personal characteristics, like their social position, gender, race and

religion.62

The acceptance of the rights of the other tries to measure the acceptance and tolerance of individuals and groups in society. This pillar is mainly related to informal community networks which can be accessed by individuals. However, the rule of law also plays a role in

supporting these attitudes.63

Good relations with neighbors includes the relationships between individuals, communities and states. This is an important pillar of peace because good relations may prevent violent

conflict.64

The free flow of information describes how easily citizens can access information, whether the media is free and independent and the extent to which citizens are informed and engaged

in the political process and the variety of access to information. In short, this pillar is about

the access and independence of information in a society.65

High level of human capital is characterized by the presence of skills, knowledge and behavior within a society. This is often defined as economic benefits associated with education. Furthermore, this pillar includes the health and attitudes of individuals because

these factors also influence their contribution to society.66

Low levels of corruption is another pillar. Corruption is defined by the Institute for Economics and Peace as the abuse of a position to gain undue advantage. This can emerge through different levels of society; in the government, in business channels, or community relationships. The definition also includes actions as asking government officials for a facilitation payment, police ignoring illegal activities in return for payment or the bribing of

voters by political candidates.67

In conclusion, these pillars describe the conditions for a society of peace. They are

interdependent and they need to be fulfilled at the same time. This is a major challenge and there are many factors that can obstruct the effort to meet these conditions.

Conclusion

The transformation from war to sustainable peace is a long road; the use of violence should be limited, the roots of conflict need to be solved and a structure of cooperation needs to be build. The success of building sustainable peace does not only depend on the peacebuilding approach, but also on the interests and rational choices of the parties. Therefore, it is

important that the parties are convinced that a structure of cooperation is beneficial for them. This is the case if the new structure will meet their basic human needs which where

unsatisfied before and during the war. The Institute for Economics and Peace developed pillars for a structure of peace that meets the basic human needs. These pillars are: well-functioning government, sound business environment, equitable distribution of resources, acceptance of the rights of others, good relations with neighbors, free flow of information, high level of human capital, and low levels of corruption. It is argued that the liberal

statebuilding approach addresses these conditions for peace. The next chapter will elaborate

Chapter 2 The Statebuilding Debate

How can a state recover from the destructive consequences of civil war? What is the right approach to transform a post-civil war situation into a positive structure of cooperation and sustainable peace? After a civil war, it is believed that states need to be build because fragile

states are deeply vulnerable to violence.68 Fragile states are often subordinate to authoritarian

elites that poorly govern the country or to corrupt and predatory rulers that fail to deliver

security and prosperity for their population.69 These failures might lead to dissatisfaction with

the population and may strengthen grievances that can end up with violence. Since the Cold War, the number of internal conflicts has risen and as a result statebuilding has come at the

top of the international peace and development agenda.70 Nowadays, international actors try

to build the liberal type of state that is based on the following elements: democratization, rule

of law, human rights, free and globalized markets, and neo-liberal economic development.71

The execution of this statebuilding approach has often led to complex problems when it meets the reality of the local context. In many cases, the ruling elites are predatory or ethnically

focused and there is little trust in the state institutions.72 As a consequence, the liberal

statebuilding approach is criticized by academics to be unsuitable for post-conflict states73 and

the alternative of illiberal statebuilding has been developed. This alternative approach focuses on strengthening the state institutions to ensure the governments monopoly of the use of

force.74 It does not decide directly on the type of state that should be build.75 This chapter will

elaborate on the debate between liberal and illiberal statebuilding and it will underline the choice to further analyze liberal statebuilding. Furthermore, it will integrate the elements of liberal statebuilding into the Pillars of Peace and it will analyze to what extent liberal statebuilding contributes to sustainable peace. But first, the elements of liberal statebuilding will be defined.

68 _{Timothy Sisk and David Chandler, The Routledge Handbook of International Statebuilding (London:} Routledge, 2013),.xx.

69

Timothy Sisk, Statebuilding. War and Conflict in the Modern World (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013), 26. 70

Sisk, Statebuilding, 3. 71

Oliver P. Richmond and Jason Franks, Liberal Peace Transitions. Between Statebuilding and Peacebuilding (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009), 4.

72

Sisk, Statebuilding, 8-9. 73

David Chandler, International Statebuilding. The Rise of Post-liberal Governance (London and New York: Routledge, 2010), 24-29.

74

Joel S. Migdal, Strong Societies and Weak States. State-Society Relations and State Capabilities in the Third World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 23.

75

Democracy

There are many definitions of democracy and therefore it is difficult to obtain a consensus over the right conceptualization. According to Anna Jarstad and Timothy Sisk, democracy is commonly understood as a system where diverse interests are managed through negotiations

and accommodated by accountable and legitimate institutions.76 In this thesis, the definition

of democracy includes free and fair elections, political and civil rights, and freedom of

press.77

Rule of Law

The rule of law is defined by Thomas Carothers as a system in which the laws are public knowledge, are clear in meaning and applicable in an equal way to everyone. Furthermore,

these laws enshrine and uphold the universal human rights.78 The rule of law controls the

exercise of power, the access for citizens to justice, and the resolution of disputes.79

Human Rights

The liberal statebuilding approach includes the human rights and freedoms mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration has been adopted by many countries as a standard for all people and nations. It is aimed at providing freedom of speech and belief

and freedom from fear and want to human beings.80

Free and globalized markets

With free markets, the liberal paradigm aims at privatization and deregulation of trade to encourage competition. In order to make this work, the private property of individuals should

be protected.81 Markets are globalized when also foreign companies can enter the economic

market of a state.

Neoliberal economic development

Neoliberal economic development is aimed at creating a capitalist system that is based on private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange; the creation of goods and services (commodities) that are produced, bought, and sold in a free and

76

Anna K. Jarstad and Timothy D. Sisk, From War to Democracy. Dilemmas of Peacebuilding (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 18.

77

Fransisco L. Rivera-Batiz, “Democracy, Governance and Economic Growth: Theory and Evidence.” Review of Development Economics, vol 6 (2), 2002, 227.

78

Thomas Carothers, “The rule of law revival,” Foreign Affairs 77, no. 2 (1998): 96. 79

Institute for Economics and Peace, Pillars of Peace, 12. 80

‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,’ United Nations, accessed October 13, 2014, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.

competitive market; the owners of capital and those who provide labor for a wage to make the capitalist system function; capital resources like raw materials are used for creation of

consumer goods which are bought and sold for money with a certain exchange value.82 In the

liberal statebuilding approach neoliberal economic development is encouraged by reducing the government’s deficit spending, limitation of subsidies, reform of tax law to broaden the tax base, removal of fixed exchange rates, opening of markets to trade, privatization of

state-run business, allowance of private property and backing deregulation.83

The debate between liberal and illiberal statebuilding

The liberal statebuilding approach argues that fragile states in post-conflict situations need to be build by the implementation of democracy, rule of law, human rights, free and globalized

markets and neo-liberal development.84 The illiberal statebuilding approach has two forms of

critique on the liberal approach; power-based critique and idea-based critique. The first critique argues against the liberal approach because it is assumed to be an imposition of western power and interests. The idea-based critique argues against the liberal approach that it

is unsuitable for post-conflict states and situations of state failure.85 This thesis will pay no

attention to the power-based critique on liberal statebuilding and will assume that the intentions of the intervening forces are based on the willing to promote sustainable peace in the country in question. Instead, this thesis will discuss the idea-based critique because it deals with the foundation of the liberal framework which is viewed as a projection of western ideals in a non-liberal context where they can be counterproductive. Idea-based critics plea for less liberal frameworks of intervention and less attention to the reconstruction of sovereign states, democracy and the free market, because the attempts to universalize western models in non-liberal contexts might reproduce or even exacerbate the problems of conflict and

instability.86 The idea-based critique is linked to the illiberal critique on liberal statebuilding.

The illiberal statebuilding approach developed from the 1970s onwards and was a response to the criticism of the development policies led by the United States. Proponents of the illiberal approach tried to explain why the introduction of market-orientated policies did not result in

82

Philip Whitehead and Paul Crawshaw. Organizing neoliberalism: Markets, Privatization and Justice (London: Anthem Press, 2012), 4.

83

Investopedia. Neoliberalism, accessed October 10, 2014, http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp. 84

Oliver P. Richmond and Jason Franks, Liberal Peace Transitions. Between Statebuilding and Peacebuilding (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009), 4.

85

David Chandler, International Statebuilding. The Rise of Post-liberal Governance (London and New York: Routledge, 2010), 24-29.

86

equal development possibilities but seemed to perpetuate inequalities. According to them, the problem could be found in the formal and informal institutions of the states which prevent or

block the market from working well.87 Their solution was statebuilding by strengthening

institutions. They defined statebuilding as the improvement of autonomy, authority, capacity

and legitimacy.88 In this analysis ‘autonomy’ is defined as freedom from foreign influence or

capture of narrow domestic interests. ‘Authority’ is seen as the only legitimate use of force. The ‘capacity’ is measured by the state’s ability to formulate and deliver governance services.

‘Legitimacy’ is the internal and external right to rule.89 This is also called the Weberian

approach of statebuilding because it has the Weberian sociology of the state and legitimacy.90

Max Weber defines the state as: ‘a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly

of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.’91 In this definition is territory

one of the characteristics of the state.92 The state is considered to be the only source of power

that has the right to use force. Therefore politics becomes a means striving to share power or

to influence the distribution of power.93 This definition of state shows that leadership and

political structures are very important for the stability of a state. According to Jacek Kugler and William Domke, power is founded in the global system at the relationship between state and society. Governments acquire the tools to mobilize state action by human and material

resources.94 Therefore, the illiberal argument is that the transformation from conflict to peace

should start with strengthening the government and its institutions in a way that only the government has the means and authority to use force. The governments should get their population to obey their rules rather than the local rules of clans or the universal rules of

organizations to ensure their own survival.95 Authors who argue for the illiberal statebuilding

approach, state that the international community could only assist in building states by strengthening the institutions and not necessarily by changing the state structure into

87

David Chandler, International Statebuilding, 33. 88

Sisk, Statebuilding, 132-133, 53-58. 89 _{Sisk, Statebuilding, 46.}

90

Nicolas Lemay-Hébert, ‘Rethinking Weberian Approaches to Statebuilding,’ in The Routledge Handbook of International Statebuilding, ed. David Chandler and Timothy D. Sisk (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), 3.

91

Max Weber, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, ed. with an introduction by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (London: Routledge, 1991), 78.

92

Weber, From Max Weber, 78. 93

Ibidem, 78. 94

Jacek Kugler and Domke, William, ‘Comparing the Strength of Nations,’ Comparative Political Studies 19, no. 1, (April 1986): 40.

democracy, trying to implement rule of law and human rights and developing a neoliberal economy. The idea is that institution building should be settled first and that the type of state

should be decided later.96 The defense of the liberal statebuilding against these criticisms

consists of two main arguments; democratic peace and capitalist peace.

Democratic Peace

The liberal statebuilding approach has often been defended with the democratic peace argument. This argument states that democracy is a condition for peace because democratic

countries do not fight each other due to their institutions and norms.97 This means that the

democratic regime should not only conduct elections, but also adopt the liberal institutions

and norms.98 The electoral democracies without these liberal institutions are called illiberal

democracies.99

For the liberal democracies in Western Europe and North America, it is highly unlikely that

one of these democracies will initiate war against another liberal democracy.100 However

according to Fareed Zakaria, in 2003 half of the democratizing countries worldwide were illiberal democracies. These electoral democracies miss the inclusion of the rule of law, the separation of powers and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion and

property.101 Zakaria states that this democratization process produced a degree of chaos and

instability that worsened corruption and lawlessness. For example in Venezuela, the

government takes more and more power even in judicial areas.102 A liberal democracy is

therefore better because the rule of law and democracy limit the means of coercion of the central authority, the first by setting up transparent and universal rules and the second by

ensuring that the popular will is reflected in the exercise of power.103

Some argue that liberal democracy develops during the years and that democracy is a good start in any way. But Zakaria argues that outside Europe, illiberal democracy has not proved

96

Francis Fukuyama, “Liberalism versus Statebuilding,” Journal of Democracy 18, no. 3 (July 2007): 11-12. 97

Ben E. Goldsmith and Jurgen Brauer, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political Perspectives (Bingley: Emerald Group, 2010), 1.

98

Shah M. Tarzi, Democratic Peace, Illiberal Democracy and Conflict Behavior, in International Journal on World Peace, vol. 24, December 2007, 36.

99

Tarzi, Democratic Peace, 36; Fareed Zakaria, The Future of Freedom. Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (New York: W.W. Norton, 2003), 17-19.

100

Tarzi, Democratic Peace, 36. 101

Zakaria, The Future of Freedom, 17-19. 102 _{Zakaria, The Future of Freedom, 96-100.} 103

to be an efficient path to liberal democracy.104 This means that the rule of law and human rights should be implemented directly during the statebuilding process. Otherwise, it is not likely that they will be implemented at all. From this it can be stated that liberal states in Western Europe and North America appear to be in sustainable peace and that the illiberal democracies are instable. Therefore, building a liberal democracy with the liberal institutions and norms is more likely to encourage peace than the implementation of illiberal democracies. However, this argument seems to underline the idea-based critique of the illiberalists that liberal statebuilding is a projection of Western states in a non-liberal context. Since the Western countries are the most peaceful countries in the world, the belief is that the regime-type should be copied in order to settle peace.

But there are more explanations for the democratic peace argument. The first is, that a liberal

democracy protects against the worst.105 In authoritarian regimes, the level of benefits for the

people depends on the goodwill of the authoritarian leader and its advising technocrats. In this case, democratic regimes can be more beneficial for the people because bad leaders can be

voted out of office.106 An authoritarian regime is coercive in the sense that it divides the

society into those who give order and those who have to obey. Violence may become a way to insure obedience. Therefore, this alternative will not lead to sustainable peace but will

maintain violence.107 On the contrary, a liberal state focuses on the needs of the people by

promoting human rights. Furthermore, it tries to protect the people from a coercive

government by promoting the rule of law.108 A coercive regime that uses violence to insure

obedience might receive violence in return when its power declines. The illiberal statebuilding approach therefore strengthens the power of the government, but if the government does not satisfy the needs of the population, grievances may become stronger. This will not result in long-term stability. Therefore, the success of statebuilding is highly dependent on the goodwill of the ruling elites. The liberal state is a better type of state than an authoritarian regime because democracy gives the people the opportunity to elect the right leaders and vote

104

Zakaria, The Future of Freedom, 96-100. 105

Lemay-Hébert, Rethinking, 10. 106

Francis Fukuyama, State Building. Governance and World Order in the Twenty-First Century (Ithaca, NY: Profile Books, 2004), 37.

107

R.J. Rummel, Power Kills. Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence (New Brunswick: Transaction Publisher, 1997), 203.

out the bad ones. This limits the power of the ruling elite in a way that it cannot oppress its people without the consent of the people itself.

However, Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder argue in the article ‘Democratization and

War’ that most of these arguments are based on the practice of well-established democracies.

Post-conflict states still have to transform to democracies and the question raises if this

process will lead to sustainable peace.109 On the contrary, evidence has shown that transitional

states from autocracies to democracies are more likely to fight wars than stable autocracies or democracies. States that make the biggest transition, from total autocracy to extensive mass democracy are twice as likely to fight wars after a decade than states who remain

autocracies.110 Therefore, the question raises if it is beneficial for the process of sustainable

peace if states transform to democracies. The transformation from autocracy to a well-established democracy can take ages and the international community is often not able to be involved in the statebuilding process for that period of time. However, in the book ‘Electing

to fight’ Mansfield and Snyder state that not all transitions to democracy are dangerous

because states with strong political institutions like organized parties that compete in fair

elections, rule of law and professional new media, are less likely to end up in war.111 If these

institutions are rooted, democratization can be meaningful.112 This argues for the illiberal

statebuilding approach that builds institutions first and decides on the type of state later.

Against this, it can be argued that it is doubtful that building institutions without the implementation of democracy, human rights, economic development and without the

separation of powers, will satisfy the grievances and the interest of the conflict parties. If the international community assists a state with strengthening the government institutions after civil war, it takes side in the civil war. Building and consolidating state institutions depend on the social bond of the people of the country to this process. The process needs to be

recognized as legitimate by the citizens, especially when external actors are involved.113

Therefore, it is important that the component of democracy is included in the statebuilding

109

Roland Paris, At War’s End: Building Peace after Civil Conflict (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 44.

110

Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder, “Democratization and War,” in Council of Foreign Relations 74, no. 3 (1995): 79-80.

111

Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder, Electing to Fight. Why Emerging Democracies go to War (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005), 2.

112 _{Mansfield and Snyder, Electing to Fight, 18.} 113

approach because it gives the people a voice in its statebuilding process. Furthermore, the liberal institutions and norms which are the elements of rule of law and human rights should also be included, because these protects the individuals in a country.

This argument is connected to the concept of human security which has become mainstream

in the security debate.114 This concept focuses on security of the people instead of state

security. It states that all people should be able to take care for themselves and should have the possibility to earn their living and meet their essential needs. The definition of human

security could be summarized by ‘Freedom from fear and freedom from want’.115 It focuses

on the needs of the people by promoting human rights and it tries to protect the people from a

coercive government by promoting the rule of law.116 Human rights and the rule of law can

contribute to the wellbeing by overcoming political and legal inequalities. Furthermore, it strengthens the authority of state institutions. In this way, we can argue that rule of law and human rights are beneficial for sustainable peace.

Capitalist peace

Another argument for liberal statebuilding is the explanation of ‘capitalist peace’. This states

that open markets and economic development are key factors that settle peace,117 because

statistically, peace is associated with better business environments, higher income per capita,

higher educational status and stronger social cohesion.118 Peace makes investments safer and

stimulates growth and higher living standards.119 In times of conflict, business activity will

struggle or not develop and also when the economy fails, violence might erupt.120 A strong

business environment creates employment and therefore a livelihood for individuals which

increases the level of peace.121 Therefore, it is important to develop a state economically.

114

Oliver P. Richmond, “Failed statebuilding versus peace formation,” in The Routledge Handbook of

International Statebuilding, ed. David Chandler and Timothy D. Sisk (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), 138.

115 _{“Human Development Report 1994. New Dimensions of Human Security,” Human Development Reports,} accessed May 13, 2014, http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-report-1994.

116

Joris Voorhoeve, From War to the Rule of Law. Peace Building after Violent Conflicts (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2007) 122-123.

117

Goldsmith and Brauer, Economic of War and Peace, 1. 118

Institute for Economics and Peace, Pillars of Peace. Understanding the key attitudes and institutions that underpin peaceful societies (Sydney: Institute for Economics and Peace, September 2013), 2.

119

Jurgen Brauer and John Tepper Marlin, A Method to compute a Peace Gross World Product by Country and by Economic Sector, in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political Perspectives, ed. Benjamin E. Goldsmith and Jurgen Brauer (Bingley: Emerald Group, 2010), 18.

120 _{Institute for Economics and Peace, Pillars of Peace, 4.} 121

However, the economy should not be viewed isolated from the wider context of the state, but

also in relation to a functioning government and the strength of community bonds.122

It appears from a study on African post-conflict countries, that the success of post-war transitions is dependent on the public expenditures and tax policy of the government. Successful post-war transitions are characterized by a growth in size of the government together with a growth in size of expenditures and revenues in a comparable pace. The government expenditure should address the horizontal inequalities between the conflict

parties. This expenditure will make rebellion a less attractive option for citizens.123 To be sure

that the government will make expenditures in the interest of its people, it is important that the regime is democratic. A democratic government depends on the approval of its citizens and is therefore more willing to meet the interests of its citizens. A government that supports its citizens, business and communities by public services also encourages stability and

confidence in society.124 Furthermore, the rule of law is needed for the insurance that the

government follows a monetary and tax policy that is in the interest of the state. 125 It is also

needed for economic institutions like banks and labor unions. A market economy needs law

enforcement to uphold its basic elements such as contracts and property rights.126

However, the illiberal argument against the implementation of liberal norms and values is that they do not fit in a non-liberal context. In Africa for example, it is hard to implement the rule of law because most of the post-conflict states are underdeveloped and their political and economic elites act in predatory ways. The liberal approach of centralizing key state functions and supporting free trade and entrepreneurial self-help, tends to benefit these elites to promote their own interests. Furthermore, the external implementation of rule of law and human rights

ignores potential clashes with local traditions and informal frameworks.127 In post-conflict

situations the rule of law may promote justice for conflict actors, but fail to promote justice and equity in the society. In Africa this paradox is often the case in post-conflict states. This is

122

Ibidem, 5. 123

Fabrizio Carmignani and Adrian Gauci, Does Fiscal Policy differ between Successful and Unsuccessful Post-conflict Transitions? Lessons from African Civil Wars, in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political Perspectives, ed. Benjamin E. Goldsmith and Jurgen Brauer (Bingley: Emerald Group, 2010), 131, 138-139.

124

Institute for Economics and Peace, Pillars of Peace, 9, 11. 125

Carothers, The rule of law revival, 97. 126

Ibidem, 97. 127

even more problematic when the population values welfare and equality more than political

and legal rights and expect the state to provide in redistribution.128

However, the negative results of liberal statebuilding in Africa does not prove that the approach is not right in itself. It might also be a consequence of a wrong execution of the approach. Furthermore, the question raises if illiberal statebuilding is a better alternative. If the international community only assists in the strengthening of the state institutions and in making the government the only authority to use force, the predatory behavior of the elites may still flourish. There will be no clash with liberal norms and values with the local norms and traditions but still the government may not answer to the needs of the population.

According to Timothy Sisk, in post-civil war situations there might be deep social distrust of

the state and a challenge of humanitarian catastrophe which requires much recovery.129

Therefore, much external involvement is needed to restore peace and stability. Local ownership and little international involvement can result in a situation in which the

indigenous structures and institutions are abusive, weak or factionalized.130 But states cannot

be build from the outside and therefore it is important for the international community to understand the local dynamics of power before it engages with weak states. International assistance should be seen as facilitating local processes, providing resources and creating space for local actors to define their polity by mediating their vision of wellbeing into

responsive, stable and resilient institutions.131

Joris Voorhoeve argues in his book ‘From War to the Rule of Law. Peacebuilding after

Violent Conflicts’ against the practices of liberal statebuilding by the international

community. He states that although peacebuilding operations that help countries establish rule of law after war are necessary for humanitarian reasons, the efforts are too little, too late, too short, too fragmented and too foreign. The efforts are too little because donors quickly withdraw their focus from the security sector after war is ended. They are too late because after a cease-fire it can take months before international assistance arrives and at that time many crucial positions are already taken. Furthermore, the efforts are too short and too fragmented because donors often prefer to make quick fixes and funds are limited, while the

128

Richmond, The Rule of Law, 54. 129

Sisk, Statebuilding, 7-8. 130

Newman, ‘Liberal’ peacebuilding debates, 32.

establishment of rule of law can take years.132 However, the failures of liberal statebuilding in practice do not prove that it cannot not contribute to sustainable peace. These failures point at a wrong execution of the approach and lessons should be learned from these mistakes.

In conclusion, the justification of the liberal statebuilding approach is based on the good examples of sustainable peace in Western states and the instability of illiberal democracies. The explanation of the difference for peace and stability between these two types of regimes is summarized in the arguments of democratic and capitalist peace. Democratic peace argues that a liberal state is the best type of regime because the liberal norms and institutions protects the individual security of the population. Capitalist peace argues for the stimulation of the free market and economic growth because peace is associated with better business environments and higher income per capita. The liberal approach is criticized by illiberal theorists that the liberal framework does not fit in a non-liberal context. This argument is founded on negative experiences within liberal statebuilding projects. First of all, it takes decennia to fulfill the process and there are many transitions of autocracies towards democracies that end up in war. Secondly, in the case of Africa, the state institutions are undeveloped and the elites act in predatory ways. The liberal statebuilding approach tends to benefit these elites and thereby seem to strengthen the inequalities in societies. This underlines the argument that the liberal approach requires much external involvement that might not be supported by the population and might clash with traditions and informal frameworks. Finally, international community often does not have time nor enough means to be involved long enough. However, the criticism on the liberal statebuilding approach is mainly based on negative results in the past and does not prove negative influence of the liberal framework for sustainable peace in itself. On the contrary, the liberal statebuilding aims at the freedom and security of individual human beings, where the illiberal statebuilding approach is only aimed at stability of the state and strengthening of institutions. If the international community applies the illiberal approach, it may seem to the population that the international community takes sides in conflict and this will strengthen the grievances and undermine the stabilization of the country. The liberal statebuilding approach on the other hand, encourages economic growth and wellbeing of individuals, it stimulates dialogue between conflict parties through democratic means and the implementation of the rule of law and it protects individuals through human rights. For this

132