This new international approach to conflict resolution bases itself on the pre- ... edited by Bruce Dayton and Louis Kriesberg, provides a useful contribution to.
International Studies Review (2011) 13, 637–646
Statebuilding through Liberal Means: Thinking about Challenges, Contradictions, and the Impacts of Local and International Players in Postwar Peace Operations Review by Marcelo M. Valenc¸a
Programa de Po´s-Graduac¸a˜o em Relac¸o˜es Internacionais, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding: Moving from Violence to Sustainable Peace. Edited by Bruce W. Dayton and Louis Kriesberg. New York: Routledge, 2009. 288 pp., $42.95 paperback (ISBN-13: 978-0-415-48085-7). The Dilemmas of Statebuilding: Confronting the Contradictions of Postwar Peace Operations. Edited by Roland Paris and Timothy D. Sisk. New York: Routledge, 2009. 366 pp., $42.95 paperback (ISBN-13: 978-0-415-77629-5). The Paradoxes of Peacebuilding Post 9 ⁄ 11. Edited by Stephen Baranyi. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008, 440 pp., $29.95 paperback (ISBN-13: 978-0-804-76090-4). Waging War, Making Peace: Reparations and Human Rights. Edited by Barbara Rose Johnston and Susan Slyomovic. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2008. 272 pp., $27.95 paperback (ISBN-13: 978-1-59874-344-9).
The end of the Cold War is often considered a turning point for an increasing engagement of the international community on preventing and resolving armed conflicts worldwide. The period also highlights the strengthening of UN efforts to organize multilateral efforts to sustain peace in turbulent regions, mostly through the development of more complex peacekeeping operations that would tackle not only the war violence, but also its causes and consequences. Such involvement was supported by guidelines presented in documents such as the Agenda for Peace (1992) and the Brahimi Report (2000). This new international approach to conflict resolution bases itself on the premise that a peaceful international environment has its foundations on stable, fully functional states that would allow political freedom and economic development to its citizens. In other words, international stability is linked to the Western, liberal model of states, whether target states are culturally and socially fit for such model or not. According to such expectations, a new political concept arose: peacebuilding. By and large, peacebuilding is a set of processes to resolve armed conflicts in order to achieve a sustainable peace and to restore normal politics. It includes, but is not limited to, democratization, political participation, and a free market. The general belief is that by transforming unstable states into fully functional political units, international community would prevent armed conflicts and political violence. Any dispute that may arise would be resolved through normal politics, that is, through non-violent paths. Former enemies would be turned Valenc¸a, Marcelo M. (2011) Statebuilding through Liberal Means: Thinking about Challenges, Contradictions, and the Impacts of Local and International Players in Postwar Peace Operations. International Studies Review, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2486.2011.01076.x 2011 International Studies Association
638
Statebuilding through Liberal Means
into political rivals and the right to use of violence would be returned to state authorities, under the rule of law. One of the dimensions of peacebuilding is statebuilding. It consists of a set of procedures focused on strategies such as the strengthening of political institutions and the stimulus of economic development, the restoration of the rule of law, and the consolidation of a secure environment. Notwithstanding being just an approach to peacebuilding, statebuilding became a plausible and acceptable solution to prevent states from failing, as it allows international intervention in order to overcome violence and political illegitimacy. Thus, not only does the statebuilding discourse seem compatible to Western democratization discourse, it also supports some key aspects of contemporary international security agendas. As the volumes reviewed show, state failure is a major concern in the post-9 ⁄ 11 world and conflict resolution strategies were focused on the prevention of such failure, mostly through liberal strategies. In that fashion, the principles that guide peacebuilding and statebuilding strategies are quite simple to enunciate, even though it is not that easy to develop. This is the general unifying theme of the four books reviewed in this article: the practice of statebuilding, its implications for peacebuilding, and how the coordinated action of both international and local actors may help the enterprise.1 The increased visibility in statebuilding enterprises since 9 ⁄ 11 has shown a spotlight on how such practices are held and the implications of international intervention both locally and internationally. The books also propose a more detailed discussion on what statebuilding means, as it is not uncommon to consider it as an equivalent of democratization or Westernization. Despite such generalization, the four edited volumes do not take statebuilding for granted. In different degrees, each book provides critical foundations to think creatively about the relation between statebuilding, peacebuilding, and the impacts on both the state and society. By and large, this is the main contribution of the volumes: to serve as a discussion arena to the increasing and ongoing debates linking state failure and armed conflicts, democracy and peace, institutions, and statebuilding. As edited volumes, the books are mostly recommended not only to graduate students, but also to practitioners involved in conflict resolution, peace operations, and statebuilding. Furthermore, these books may be successfully used in courses in International Security, Conflict Management, and Peace and Conflict Studies. The audience would greatly benefit from the theoretical discussions they offer, principally on contemporary themes such as democratization and conflict transformation, as well as the case studies. Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding: Moving from Violence to Sustainable Peace, edited by Bruce Dayton and Louis Kriesberg, provides a useful contribution to the study of the role of the various types of actors involved in the peacebuilding project. Thus, one must consider the relationship between actors to the outcomes of the statebuilding. As the contributors highlight the different interests and motivations that guide the participants of the statebuilding, it is important to realize how to cope with such preferences in order to avoid surprises by the end of the intervention. By assuming a creative approach to deal with the conflict, one may find paths to promote the integration among the main actors of the conflict, highlighting the interests of their adversaries. Interveners should engage former enemies in a 1 The books reviewed in this article are edited volumes, but each one will be referred as whole in order to facilitate the argument, except when explicitly referred. Instead of discussing each contributor’s perspective, this review article will discuss the main argument of each volume—which may result in the negligence of a more detailed approach to each chapter. Although this is a problematic choice, it seems to be a good approach to the main contribution of each volume.
Marcelo M. Valenc¸a
639
dialogue to let one side know the other side’s motivations. In that fashion, it is not enough to simply resolve armed conflicts: their transformation into normal politics and events is suggested as the most adequate alternative to achieve sustainable peace. In other words, to take a creative approach to cope with armed conflicts involves both the understanding of how the different actors involved in the conflict relate to each other and the development of mechanisms of social interaction that will support the transformation of the conflict through mutual commitment. This process of mutual commitment is expressed through three premises that emphasize the plural aspect of politics and the importance of developing confidence-building measures. Firstly, governments do not occupy a morally privileged position so they do not necessarily reflect general opinion. Secondly, the transformation of the behavior of groups occurs in a context where perceptions and choices play a huge role, impacting preferences and rational choices. Finally, conflicts are an inevitable aspect of social interaction that would allow not only the change of the society, but also its evolution by challenging norms considered harmful and addressing other needs. By considering these premises, both local and international actors may focus on developing mechanisms of cooperation to fulfill their needs and objectives, allowing them to overcome the dilemmas raised by the armed conflict and its tensions during the peacebuilding and beyond. Thereupon, the question that guides the contributors throughout the book is ‘‘how to constructively deal with conflicts.’’ The frequently asked question of ‘‘how to avoid conflicts,’’ a common and immediate concern for policymakers and practitioners, is put aside to create basis for long-term solutions. The change of the working question implies a change of perception toward conflict: it should not be considered a negative aspect in social relations. On the contrary, conflicts represent and motivate social change, in order to avoid accommodation by exposing situations that must be dealt with in order to achieve a durable peace and social stability. This is key to understanding the motivations of the parties to engage in an armed conflict in order to search for solutions to settle them peacefully; otherwise, conflicts will resume.2 Thus, personnel involved in on-field activities should concentrate their efforts in finding paths to transform conflicts in a way that would progressively stabilize social relations. In contrast to policymakers, in-field personnel are more involved with the belligerent groups and may have a better comprehension of the existing social dynamics. This would allow the understanding of how certain moves may compromise peace by sustaining armed struggle through other means, without recurring to violence or the threat of it. Instead of pretending the conflict has ended, in-field actors must look forward to overcome obstacles by offering trade-offs that would look attractive not only to the belligerents, but also to other groups that may spoil the peace process. For this purpose, two broad categories of actors are identified: (i) the leadership and (ii) the people on the ground. There is a third category, the intermediaries, but their involvement resembles more of a facilitator for the implementation of the strategies to strengthening the state. Without taking their presence for granted, Bruce Dayton shows that intermediaries play a decisive role in the success of the statebuilding process, but they must not be considered as acting altruistically nor unbiased. Although their role is to engage strategies to effectively contribute to the transformation of the conflict, it is not uncommon
2 Previous studies show that since the end of the Cold War, peace treaties—the most common way to end a conflict—do not offer success in the long run. As peace treaties usually offer suboptimal outcomes to the parties involved, many interests present in the political calculus may still be unresolved, so the conflict tends to resume some time after its interruption. For further details, please refer to Stedman (2001).
640
Statebuilding through Liberal Means
that their participation leaves no impact at all—as perceived in several opportunities throughout the 1990s and 2000s. Leaders are considered the main recipients of political incentives to end conflicts; due to their visibility, the influence they have over their constituents is considered strong enough to end or to perpetuate conflicts. A creative approach to conflicts would analyze their interests and how it impacts their strategies toward other groups. Hence, Margaret Hermann and Catherine Gerard offer a study on why leadership matters and how it would be possible to influence these leaders to change their behavior. Elham Atashi does a similar study, but focuses on the people on the ground. The contributor shows that despite playing an important role in the long-term success of the statebuilding process, the people on the ground are often neglected. The result of such indifference is an uneven peace, which leads to a condition that facilitates incentives for marginalized social groups to resume violence in order to achieve their goals. Thus, people on the ground should have their expectations fulfilled, at least in a minimum level. And what about the question of how to think creatively about statebuilding and peacebuilding? The answer lies in the incentives created by the intermediaries to promote effective changes. In a broader sense, the main proposition of the book rests on the transformation and consolidation of war practices into political institutions and the transformation of insecurity into opportunities. More precisely, it refers to the demilitarization of politics through elections and subsequently the mutation of belligerent groups into political parties. These procedures are central to the transformation of the conflict and would create incentives for the belligerent groups to abandon violent clashes, as former belligerents would find outcomes in normal politics as productive as the ones they found when they opted to fight. Furthermore, they also stimulate the consolidation of a democratic culture, where opposite groups—no longer belligerents—are able to dispute power and to engage in politics without the fear of being threatened by violence or be excluded from the political environment. To think creatively about statebuilding leads to the development of alternative strategies to turn armed conflict into normal politics. The development and strengthening of liberal institutions, according to the contributors, is an essential dimension of the whole process, especially because it boosts the production of peace dividends, that is, the positive outcomes distributed throughout social segments and political groups that would incentivize the maintenance of normal politics and would prevent the return to violence. The credibility of the statebuilding process is enhanced, as people directly affected by violence might have their expectations fulfilled—including the reduction of violence, reconciliation measures, and the reallocation of social and political goods. Exploring not the actors involved in statebuilding but the consequences of their actions, Roland Paris and Timothy Sisk’s co-edited volume, The Dilemmas of Statebuilding: Confronting the Contradictions of Postwar Peace Operations, explicitly proposes liberal strategies to guarantee the success of statebuilding. The volume exposes the tensions and contradictions that may appear when balancing external assistance and the granting of autonomy to local populations during the reconstruction of war-torn states. The contributors explore specific dilemmas that may appear while liberal institutions are being implemented and the contributors of the book are particularly interested in studying impacts on three major areas: security, economics, and politics. Based on the increasing participation of international society in peacebuilding enterprises since the 1990s, the articles in this book work on the premise that the implementation of liberal political institutions in war-torn societies does contribute to the transition from war politics to normal politics as they may help to consolidate a creative approach to how conflicts should be taken care of. Instead
Marcelo M. Valenc¸a
641
of recurring to violent clashes, liberal institutions would create incentives for the political groups to engage in debates according to their rules and procedures. Important aspects discussed earlier in the book are the concepts of peacebuilding and statebuilding. These two expressions are frequently used in international politics, most of the times as synonymous. The former consists of a series of stages and strategies that ultimately leads to the stabilization of politics in a non-violent dimension, while the latter means ‘‘the strengthening or construction of legitimate governmental institutions in countries that are emerging from conflicts’’ (p. 14). Based on such distinctions, the volume focuses on developing approaches towards successful peacebuilding, as it is often neglected by international efforts due to its costs and length, with statebuilding being one of the mechanisms to achieve such goal. By the end of the book, the reader realizes that to understand the meaning and challenges of statebuilding, it is essential to develop strategies to promote a stable and peaceful environment. In that fashion, the book offers a refreshing perspective on how external actors may contribute to the implementation of state strategies while overcoming those dilemmas and contradictions faced during the intervention. Despite not explicitly assuming a creative approach, such as Dayton and Kriesberg’s contributors, The Dilemmas of Statebuilding, edited by Roland Paris and Timothy D. Sisk, may be understood in a similar fashion, although assuming a liberal approach. It proposes that there is no premolded blueprint leading to the success of the statebuilding enterprise. To engage in statebuilding is not only to reorganize the functionalities of the state, but also to rethink how its structure, institutions, and the role of society should be ordered to fit the demands of political groups and their interests. To sum up, institutional strengthening alone does not guarantee peace but liberal institutions may help to do so. Two key procedural dilemmas are introduced in the first part of the book: the peacebuilder’s contract and the coordination problem. The ‘‘peacebuilder’s contract’’ consists of the inevitable bargain made by external interveners with local powers and leadership in order to assure they will cooperate during the statebuilding process, while adapting some plans to local interests. Hence, outcomes are limited and the capability of promoting changes in sociopolitical environment is limited. The coordination dilemma arises from the multitude of interveners and local partners to implement statebuilding strategies. Due to the lack of a central authority to regulate and organize peace efforts, the actors involved in statebuilding develop different expectations and obey different rules of engagement, which result in problems to manage in-field actions. Despite being considered two different dilemmas—and being treated as such throughout the book—the peacebuilder’s contract and the coordination issues should be considered a single issue: in order to avoid the former, it is imperative to resolve the later. The solution proposed to do so is quite direct: support peacekeepers with more funding and resources, thus allowing them to improve their bargaining leverage and mitigate the negative impacts of any spoiler. More support means better conditions to develop statebuilding strategies and to interact with local leaderships. As local groups notice more integration among interveners—especially in operational levels such as in-field, within the bureaucracies of major donors, within the UN system, and at the headquarters level—their behavior tends to become more cooperative. Thus, the peacebuilder’s contract loses its importance as the statebuilding process turns into a more coherent enterprise. By overcoming such dilemmas and contradictions (or at least by keeping them as a variable to be faced), it would be possible to focus on the strengthening of liberal institutions in the short and long term. The concern with security, economics, and politics thus becomes central to the success of statebuilding.
642
Statebuilding through Liberal Means
Security is an essential part of the post-war environment, and no solid progress may be achieved in an insecure environment. The main contradiction here is represented by the duration and the footprint dilemmas. The correct balance of external presence and local autonomy is a key aspect for the success of the reconstruction of indigenous institutions, especially the ones targeting security. While the former refers to the pressure on external security forces to withdraw while local institutions are still being remodeled, the latter shows the need for a balance between autonomy and dependence from external aid. Security, thus, is a short-term strategy to build confidence among local parties for the long run. Economics, likewise, represents a long-term commitment but should also offer short-term benefits. Armed conflicts should not be considered development in reverse, but a new way of accumulating resources: economic strategies during wartime are a result of rational choice and will be sustained as long as they help belligerents to achieve their goals. These strategies should serve as foundations to the development of a more complex economic system that would not only reconstruct the state but also would offer incentives to political groups to engage in conflict transformation. By developing mechanisms that replicate some of the war practices but in a non-violent environment, interveners may facilitate the transition to a market economy and reduce the tensions among rival groups. Thus, in order to demilitarize economics, new institutions should be focused on creating and offering opportunities as attractive as the ones existing during war. As security and economics are short-term strategies with long-term goals, the contributions focus, finally, on political changes. Consonant with the liberal approach assumed by the book, there is the proposition of liberal political procedures, such as elections, strengthening the relationship among the former belligerent groups. In this view, elections are the first step for a democratic government and its procedures would guarantee a peaceful transition from armed conflict to normal politics. Political institutions would also allow the development of constitutional constraints for the political groups in power to not behave as warlords, as well as mechanisms of non-violent resolution for disputes. The Dilemmas of Statebuilding presents the reader with a contemporaneous approach towards intervention and peacebuilding. Its arguments and contributions are in consonance with practitioners’ handbooks of good practices, and it is an excellent framework to develop the conceptual foundations to think anew about statebuilding. By looking back in the past—using the experiences of Kosovo and Afghanistan—to analyze different dynamics and outcomes in recent statebuilding operations, the book offers directives and perspectives to contemporary operations both in Afghanistan and Iraq. The comparison of such operations highlights the necessity of carefully defined goals and strategies to achieve success in statebuilding, as these enterprises are long-term projects. The third edited volume reviewed is Stephen Baranyi’s The Paradoxes of Peacebuilding Post 9 ⁄ 11. The book offers a different approach as it is structured around case studies written not only by practitioners, but also by authors representing their own societies and experiences.3 This intercultural dialogue, bringing researchers and practitioners from Southern and Northern countries to debate the implications of peacebuilding and statebuilding, highlights the importance of understanding the mutual impacts and contributions that local actors and international agents may provoke in each other during an intervention. To ask ‘‘what kind of peace is possible’’ recognizes the differences and limitations of Western understanding of peace and politics, leading to the valorization of indigenous institutions and practices, especially in the post-9 ⁄ 11 world. While the beginning of the 1990s brought a wave of optimism to international involve3 Such options are due to the ambitions of the project ‘‘What Kind of Peace is Possible?,’’ supported since 2002 by the International Development Research Centre.
Marcelo M. Valenc¸a
643
ment in peacebuilding actions, the political environment in the early twenty-first century does not seem to be so receptive to such an approach, given the example of Iraq and Afghanistan, the last debated in the volume. Thus, it is possible to recognize the importance of assuming a local perspective towards the statebuilding enterprise. It would not only be a sustainable peace after the interveners are gone but would also decrease economical and political costs to intervene as bottom-up and top-down processes would become more integrated. In that fashion, one may notice a difference between The Paradoxes of Peacebuilding and Paris and Sisk’s The Dilemmas of Statebuilding. The former acknowledges that the implementation of liberal institutions through intervention does have the potential to result in favorable outcomes, but it also raises a flag on strategies developed to increase popular participation and the adhesion of both former belligerents and civilians, as well as to mitigate the incidence of potential spoilers. The strategies proposed are directed toward two main aspects. Firstly, interveners should address both long-term and short-term measures through multilateral strategies, focusing on the multitude of local actors and not only on leadership. Secondly, each case is a case, that is, each project should be treated according to the country’s nuances and possibilities. The conclusions and outcomes presented in the volume should not be considered universal guidelines to be executed during interventions, but a dimension of both an international and local issue that should be treated accordingly by interveners. Therefore, a lesson learned from the Baranyi volume is that local involvement with peacebuilding strategies is essential to a successful statebuilding. The question of ‘‘what kind of peace is possible’’ connects the Baranyi volume to Dayton and Kriesberg’s, not only regarding the idea of developing a creative approach to peacebuilding but also to the understanding of conflict transformation that lies beyond the development of political institutions and social changes brought by the Western statebuilding project. The focus of the volume is on three aspects of the statebuilding project: DDR, democratic governance, and economic development. These pillars are similar to the liberal dimensions highlighted by Paris and Sisk, which corroborates the view that liberal practices may be helpful to overcome violent conflicts. The difference is that these three elements are discussed both at the national and local levels, and not only from the interveners’ perspective which, on the other hand, highlights the importance of the inclusion of local actors to guarantee a peaceful environment post-intervention. The issue of local agency, thus, is a decisive component for the success of statebuilding. This may recall the concern that rose in Dayton and Kriesberg’s volume regarding the people on the ground. Peacebuilding is understood here as a transformative collective effort and, as such, should be guided smoothly. In that fashion, three main approaches may be identified throughout the volume to guarantee a sustainable peace through the contribution of local actors. The first one is the development of strategies to assure local governance. The second approach relates to the establishment of socioeconomic conditions to promote development. Finally, but as important as the other two, is the implementation of DDR programs. Each of these approaches would perform a role toward peacebuilding by offering incentives for belligerent groups and spoilers to get involved with non-violent politics. Ultimately, they would promote a creative transformation of the conflict, mitigating the risks of parties resuming the conflict. It is important to highlight that these approaches should be seen as fully integrated and interdependent. The consolidation of new institutions in the political, socioeconomic, and security spheres cannot be achieved without incentive in similar dimensions—which was one of the main contradictions found by Paris and Sisk in their volume.
644
Statebuilding through Liberal Means
Taking DDR programs as the primary effort, the contributors point out that it is more important to actually execute these programs and to promote the engagement of the whole society than to plan complex strategies or ambitious outcomes that may not be complete at all. This concern is particularly visible as several contributors do evaluate the impacts of such programs in a substate level—considering both individuals and communities—not on a national basis. This highlights the importance of peacebuilding from a bottom-up perspective. Peacebuilding is a holistic enterprise, but it must consider local particularities in order to achieve success. If a creative approach toward peacebuilding should focus on developing measures to engage both leaders and civil society in a new political environment, it is not enough to bring former belligerents to these programs.4 They must realize that the incentives offered to stick with non-violent politics would benefit them both in the short and long term. Once again, one must recall Dayton and Kriesberg’s Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding and its proposal to present the belligerents with perspectives of outcomes as favorable as the ones found in conflict. In that fashion, the involvement of local actors is a key aspect to the success of the enterprise, especially while putting the plans and guidelines into practice. DDR programs are a key to transform conflicts, but they must be understood as viable and inclusive, both socio-politically and economically. Once actors realize that it is possible to achieve dialogue and integration on coherent terms, the question of ‘‘what kind of peace is possible’’ may be answered according to each community, culture, and political context. The three edited volumes reviewed above lead the reader to realize how a non-violent political environment should be constructed to cope with postconflict issues and dilemmas. The development and strengthening of institutions to resolve future conflicts of interests are considered key elements in the prevention of armed conflicts and political violence. However, due to the difficulties in developing broad strategies, policymakers and practitioners often neglect one topic: the trauma resulting from the political violence. The strategies of statebuilding promote the reconstruction of society and politics, but the impact of the violence on the individual level is marginalized. Waging War, Making Peace: Reparations and Human Rights edited by Barbara Rose Johnston and Susan Slyomovic addresses such a topic by focusing on the problems that arise from the relationship between victim and perpetrator, as well as the importance of tackling marginalized issues such as reparation and human rights. Johnston and Slyomovics edit a volume where the contribution to the debate is extracted from the lessons learned throughout nine cases worldwide. Experiences are brought from both successful and unsuccessful experiences in Europe, Middle East, the Americas, and Africa to highlight the importance of how to overcome trauma in order to build a sustainable peace. The book addresses an important dimension of peace, labeled as social justice. According to Johann Galtung, ‘‘peace’’ means not only the end of physical violence, but also the implementation of social justice, that is, a social environment where egalitarian conditions exist and human rights and the right to dignity are respected, independently of the existence of Western institutions or values. Thus, the success of peacebuilding depends more on the creation of the necessary conditions—reparation measures—to overcome traumas than on the establishment of political institutions. In other words, if there is no reparation, there will be no peace, no matter how developed or strong political institutions are. 4 To make former belligerents take part in DDR programs is not enough to guarantee its success. Previous experiences in UN enterprises do show that these ‘‘collaborations’’ are initially understood as a mean to reduce the length of the intervention, allowing rival groups to resume armed conflicts shortly after international forces leave.
Marcelo M. Valenc¸a
645
In that fashion, reparation assumes a central position to the broad argument developed throughout the volume. The concept is defined as ‘‘any action or process that seeks to repair, make amends, or compensate for gross violations of fundamental rights’’ (p. 13) and is taken as socially constructed, that is, a lively idea that must be evaluated considering the sociopolitical environment and the inner dynamics of a given community. This characterization works as a useful starting point to think anew on peacebuilding and the peculiarities of a socially considered approach. As with the other books reviewed, Waging War, Making Peace does not propose a universalizing blueprint for a successful peacebuilding. As such, the volume not only expresses a concern with considering each society as unique, but it also defends a multi-cultural approach focused on the particularities of each community, as well a special attention on the consequences of ignoring the impacts of violence in the individual level. While the other books reviewed in this article approach the contribution of external actors to conflict resolution and the normalization of politics as conditions for a successful peacebuilding, Waging War, Making Peace chooses a different path to present its arguments. It addresses traumas and the events that originated them as pre-requisites for the broader goal of achieving a sustainable peace. In that fashion, not only international actors should engage in peacebuilding, but also—and especially—the government, political authorities, and civil society itself are responsible for the process. Actually, due to the cultural and anthropological approach suggested by the authors, local actors and their sociopolitical role are key players for the peace process. Accordingly, more important than the strengthening of political institutions and liberal measures are the processes that would lead to the reconciliation of domestic groups and would allow them to coexist peacefully. Reconciliation would be achieved through a vertical process, both from the bottom to the top and from the top to the bottom. Such approach would link actors from different social sectors in a unified goal to overcome the traumas and the instability originated by violence. It is important to notice that despite the vertical processes in both top-down and bottom-up initiatives, the book shows that the top-down approach is the most common one. In that sense, reconciliation is mostly understood as political actions taken by governments to mitigate the losses of its people. Thus, the most frequent measure taken—but not the only one possible—is the payment of financial compensation to the victims. Such ‘‘monetization of guilt,’’ or the recognition by the perpetrator—especially the state—that actions provoked a significant loss, does not result in a ‘‘forgive and forget response.’’ On the contrary, it consists of a symbolic action towards the mitigation of existing traumas. As some wounds—most noticeably the psychological ones—are harder to overcome than others, financial reparation is a symbolic action that may help to alleviate—but not to forget—such traumas. The experiences and cases described by the contributors support such a proposal. In their chapters, reparation is commonly associated with a recognition of the violation of rights by the perpetrator—mostly the government—and is followed by the attempt to restore the status quo ante, that is, the existing conditions before the violence. It is important to notice that reparation is considered a viable solution even if the previous conditions are not possible to regain. By and large, financial compensation is considered a tool of social significance to overcome trauma and, consequently, the transformation of the conflict. It helps to address the material losses caused by violence as well as the psychological dimension of the loss, which impacts both sides of the relationship. Both perpetrator and victim are connected to past violence and the reparation works as an
646
Statebuilding through Liberal Means
attempt to recognize its occurrence. The monetization of guilt acts, in other words, is a symbolic recognition of past actions of violence. That aspect is what links the broad argument of the book to Galtung’s concept of social justice and peace. While most of the debate on peacebuilding and normalization of politics focus on liberal strategies to prevent the return of armed conflict, Waging War, Making Peace rather defends a broader understanding of violence and peace. Galtung’s concepts of structural and personal violence are clearly expressed in the peace processes described in the book, and reparation is the most viable tool to achieve it. As the volume and its cases tackle both the violence committed against individuals and the social conditions, one may notice that an approach addressed to traumas is important to promote social reconciliation, which, in different degrees, leads to the normalization of politics and the eradication of social violence. In short, the broader understanding of violence and peace leads to a successful statebuilding. The other volumes reviewed defend that a sustainable peace is necessary to the whole process of statebuilding to succeed, but their focus is on the consolidation of formal institutions and practices as mechanisms that would eventually create room for peace. Waging War, Making Peace, on the other hand, skips such blueprints and broad strategies and rather refers to individuals and their roles within society as pre-conditions to a non-violent political environment. In short, instead of considering democracy as a panacea to post-conflict societies, Waging War, Making Peace defends an anthropological approach to overcome past tensions and other obstacles in order to achieve social justice. If, on the one hand Waging War, Making Peace may not deal with conflict in the way expected by International Relations scholars, on the other, the book brings a refreshing understanding to an important issue. Thus, its contribution to the field is remarkable. By using Peace Studies and an indigenous standpoint to support its argument, Waging War, Making Peace offers an interesting perspective to a theme characterized by solutions provided by external actors. In that fashion, the book fits appropriately to the broad questions developed in the other volumes reviewed. As previously stated, the question of how to think about statebuilding is central to scholars, practitioners, and policymakers. However, due to political and economical costs, answers to such a question often follow a convenient model that lacks either a local dimension or a full understanding of the actors involved in such enterprises. The volumes reviewed here will help to overcome such shortcomings and will highlight aspects that should be considered during both the planning stages and the actual intervention in armed conflicts. Reference Stedman, Stephen John. (2001) International Implementation of Peace Agreements in Civil Wars: Findings from a Study of Sixteen Cases. In Turbulent Peace: The Challenges of Managing International Conflicts, edited by Chester A. Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson, and Pamela Aall. Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 737–752.
