Journal of Peacebuilding & Development
ISSN: 1542-3166 (Print) 2165-7440 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpd20
Peace Operations and Development Interventions:
Expanding Focus on Context, Politics, Participation
and Transparency
Erin McCandless & Mohammed Abu-Nimer
To cite this article: Erin McCandless & Mohammed Abu-Nimer (2009) Peace Operations and
Development Interventions: Expanding Focus on Context, Politics, Participation and Transparency,
Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 5:1, 1-7, DOI: 10.1080/15423166.2009.285321146729
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15423166.2009.285321146729
Published online: 02 Apr 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 108
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjpd20
EDITORIAL
PEACE OPERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT
INTERVENTIONS: EXPANDING FOCUS ON
CONTEXT, POLITICS, PARTICIPATION
AND TRANSPARENCY
ERIN McCANDLESS AND MOHAMMED ABU-NIMER
In JPD tradition, this issue offers in-depth case analysis, sharing new thinking on recurrent
themes at the intersections of peacebuilding and development. Specific efforts in historically
tough cases for the international community are examined in this issue – Rwanda, Western
Sahara and Israel/Palestine – and while some progress can be identified in each, persistent
challenges are more apparent, suggesting the need to pause and ask: are lessons being
learned and incorporated in peacebuilding and development interventions? Several of the
articles indicate ways in which certain international efforts are having unintended
consequences of stagnating peace efforts and may even be contributing to entrenching
structural sources of conflict that led to war in the first place and have not been soundly
addressed. As our cases in this issue illustrate, there is a need for renewed vigour by
international and national actors alike towards:
"
Putting context- and conflict-sensitive concerns into practice;
"
Ensuring politics and political analysis serve peacebuilding and development; and
"
Fostering participation and transparency in assumptions, roles and agendas.
Other common themes that run through the issue include: how to ensure that peacemaking
transitions to peacebuilding and fostering forms of development will reinforce the peace
rather than undermine it; international community behaviour (i.e. in the levels, frequency
and types of aid) in protracted conflicts that persist over years if not decades; the role of
natural resources in each phase of conflict and peace; and the need to develop coherent
peacebuilding processes and frameworks to address these issues. As in all JPD issues,
innovative tools and approaches that can support better integration in the analysis and
practice of peacebuilding and development are discussed.
Two articles in this issue highlight extremely challenging peace operation contexts where
international peace efforts led by the United Nations are not sufficiently learning or
incorporating lessons needed to consolidate peace: Rwanda and the Western Sahara. In
the first case, Sebastian Silva Leander examines international efforts in post-war Rwanda,
arguing that the missing institutional linkages between the global development and security
architectures have undermined the effectiveness of the international community’s efforts
in the Great Lakes region. He tracks the flows of aid, illustrating that while the quantity of
aid has not significantly changed, the donors supporting recovery efforts have. There are
now more Anglophone donors, reflecting the changing geo-strategic balance in the region
as a result of the victory of the largely English-speaking Rwandan Patriotic Front over the
1
Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, Vol. 5 NO.1, 2009
© Journal of Peacebuilding & Development
ISSN 1542-3166
Journal of Peacebuilding & Development
Francophone regime of President Habyarimana. This has resulted in a lack of continuity
and undermined lesson learning. Silva Leander argues that the aid system still suffers
from the problems that contributed to fuelling the Rwandan conflict in the years leading
up to the genocide: inadequate analysis of the socio-political context in which aid is being
allocated and, where analysis does exist, it is ad hoc and not systematically linked to the
aid allocation process.
There are also important lessons from a case long forgotten by many: the United Nations
Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). Charles Dunbar and Kathleen
Malley-Morrison delve into the history, drawing on Dunbar’s prominent role as the UN
Secretary General’s former special representative for Western Sahara. They cite MINURSO
as one of the UN’s longest and least successful peace operations. The stagnation of this
20-year effort to settle the conflict between Morocco and the Polisario and their competing
claims for Western Sahara, they argue, is a result both of a lack of a ‘hurting stalemate’
and the UN’s inability to effectively move this process forward and hold a referendum, a
central part of its mandate. They place the blame on an environment of secrecy and
mistrust fostered by the approach of former Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar
and the lack of pressure from the Security Council, as well as the geopolitical relationships
that have undermined action – especially as Morocco and Algeria are seen to be allies of
the United States, Spain and other European countries in the ‘war on terror’. Despite a
lengthy ceasefire, the undetermined political fate of the Western Sahara deters foreign
investments and prevents any form of human development for Sahrawis while also
diverting development resources in Morocco, but also in Algeria, a long-time supporter
of the Polisario. At the same time, Morocco is benefiting from the lucrative fishing industry
it controls in Western Sahara, which comprises a significant share of its export earnings.
The authors argue that the case illustrates that the end of armed violence does not
automatically mean that development will begin – an ill-fated assumption that the
international community often makes. It also illustrates the different economic and
political cost to the parties and stakeholders, depending on their power bases and their
level of vulnerability, over time in a stagnated process.
Eric Abitbol’s article is a critical examination of phase 1 of the Red Sea-Dead Sea Canal
(RSDSC) project and its claim to result in a ‘peace dividend’ for the region. The RSDSC
involves Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian West Bank in the context of an escalation in
violence and political stalemate since 2000 (the start of the second Palestinian Intifada), as
well as a political and economic embargo on the Hamas leadership in Gaza. To date, as a
result of the conflict, the Palestinians have no access to or control over the water of this
region, which is a major component of sustainable development, and their continued
lack of access has the potential to exacerbate the conflict and lack of development. While
it is expected that the RSDSC will transform the region physically and could help stabilise
it through revitalisation of its water sources (assuming that sustainable and cooperative
relationships are established among the three entities), the process instead obfuscates the
political issues underlying the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Abitbol argues that the current
approach does not go beyond the minimal acknowledgement that the project is taking
place in a ‘disputed area’ (as opposed to ‘occupied territories’). It also prioritises the
RSDSC project ahead of the beneficiary parties and the human security of their
populations. For example, there is a lack of involvement of Palestinian representatives in
the early stages of the design, a lack of input by the local communities that will be affected
by the RSDSC, and a lack of joint forums to explore political possibilities (statehood,
refugees, settlements, etc.). While the face of the RSDSC intervention is that of a natural
resource, the political dimensions of the conflict are deeply intertwined. There are also
regional implications for any proposed solution.
2
Editorial
Hussein Tarabeih, Deborah Shmueli and Rassem Khamaisi explore the potential application
of sulha, an ancient method used in Arab and Islamic societies to settle disputes among
individuals or community groups, to environmental and resource-based conflicts. The
authors seek to build on the strengths of sulha – which is rooted in the Arab cultural and
social fabric, has strong social legitimacy due to its bottom-up methods, and holds promise
for producing viable agreements that have a greater chance of achieving sustained
resolution than verdicts issued by Israeli civilian courts – and address its weaknesses.
They outline a proposed sulha process that would allow further integration of professional
peacebuilding mechanisms to enhance sustainable outcomes of these local disputes.
Embodying a commitment to foster inclusion of all stakeholders, the intervention process
they propose would commence at an early stage, before the dispute escalates, would seek
to expand the range of possible agreements acceptable to all stakeholders rather than
imposing a solution, and would be facilitated by a neutral professional body. However,
establishing a recognised environmental sulha process would also require the support of
religious scholars and officials in drafting a religious environmental codex.
Other authors in this issue also explore tools to promote conflict prevention. Andrew Sherriff
describes the process undertaken in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2006 to develop the United
Kingdom’s integrated country conflict prevention strategy. At the heart of the approach
was a conflict assessment process involving civil society actors. Despite the assumption
that this is good practice, civic actors are often not included because of time pressures,
political sensitivities, donor control and a lack of commitment to consultation. The result
in this case was an agreed operational conflict analysis, one that had greater national
ownership and that was jointly owned across UK government departments. Sherriff argues
that some rigour may have been sacrificed for joint UK departmental buy-in; however, he
points out, ‘any analysis, however rigorous, is pointless if it cannot be used’, and therefore
a ‘good enough analysis’ is more effective in promoting implementation if it is practicable.
For Sherriff, the process illustrates a donor trend towards ‘light’ conflict assessments that
are better linked to strategy and programming than longer analytical or academic
assessments conducted by external experts.
Kofi Nsia-Pepra and Frederic S. Pearson draw on a database that tracks legal and illegal
arms transactions in Southeast Asia from 1990 to 1999 to illuminate the relationship between
weapons acquisition and the escalation, or de-escalation, of regional conflicts. Coordinated
international action is needed, they argue, to track, if not restrict, the unofficial trade in
small arms and related equipment given the ways in which unregulated flows of weapons
across porous borders severely weaken and threaten fragile states, creating a culture of
cyclical war and spin-off wars. This method could serve as an early warning system and
allow peacekeepers to have a better sense of the relative arms balances and concentrations.
In the first such analysis on Southeast Asia, the database has revealed a complex interaction
of multiple partners and intermediaries that make up clusters of regional arms networks,
involving many illegal transfers, surreptitious transit points especially evident for states
under international restriction or sanction. The authors point out that these networks
depend on mutual trust, interdependence among actors and redundancy of supplies – all
of which can be considered in developing strategic responses and highlighting the need
for alternative economic opportunities for those engaged in the war-supporting economy.
Two theoretical articles in this issue examine relationships between the theories and practices
of peacebuilding and development. Terrence L. Jantzi and Vernon E. Jantzi tackle an important
and under-researched theme in peacebuilding and development – the implicit theoretical
assumptions that guide practice in both fields. The authors set an ambitious goal of classifying
and categorising peacebuilding processes of intervention into three major frameworks that
3
Journal of Peacebuilding & Development
have shaped development discourse from the early 1950s through today: modernisation,
growth with equity, and liberation from dependency. They argue that practitioners in both
fields would communicate better if they became aware of their embedded assumptions, and
they suggest a common framework for analysing operating assumptions.
Adriana Salcedo also examines development theories and practice, interrogating the
intersections between culture and conflict. She argues that power relationships and political
agendas are at the heart of development, resulting in insufficient attention being paid to
the goals, cultural values and agency of those for whom development support is intended.
To ensure that development interventions support the ‘do no harm’ principle, she suggests
that interventions should be informed by careful cultural mappings that reveal the
‘dynamic, heterogeneous and complex nature’ of what may well be hierarchical or
asymmetric power arrangements at the local level. Salcedo suggests that development
practitioners can learn from conflict resolution practitioners, who rely on holistic approaches
to restoring relationships within and among communities, to create a more humanistic
vision of development.
Finally there are two informative book reviews that illustrate and build upon themes in
the issue. Teresia Wamuyu Wachira appraises Tim Murithi’s The Ethics of Peacebuilding,
which examines issues of marginalisation and exclusion and the need for bottom-up
approaches, focusing on local ownership and the ways in which indigenous value systems
can facilitate forgiveness and reconciliation. Lydia Gitau reviews War to Peace Transition:
Conflict Intervention and Peacebuilding in Liberia, a volume edited by Kenneth Omeje that
offers deep insights into the historical context, the role of politics, and contemporary
peacebuilding strategies in Liberia.
Putting Context- and Conflict-sensitive Concerns into Practice
In 1998, Peter Uvin published his pathbreaking work, Aiding Violence in Rwanda, which
illustrated how the development community not only missed the signs of impending
violence, but also contributed the conditions that made the genocide possible by
exacerbating inequalities and failing to be aware of the social and political context within
which they were working. It is disheartening to confront the fact that genocide has not
been able to catapult international actors into effectively incorporating lessons and
significantly changing their approaches. This of course does not mean that good intentions
are not present; some progress is visible.
Enhancing our understanding of local contexts with a view to improving context and
conflict sensitivity in peace operations and development interventions is a topic increasingly
discussed in international organisations, yet institutionalisation remains distant. Despite
the Paris Declaration signed in February 2005 by more than 100 signatories, which outlines
principles for international aid effectiveness, there remain major challenges in fostering
aid coherence as the case of Rwanda in this issue illustrates. Donors need to make much
greater efforts to subsume their national interests in shared context and conflict assessments
to guide strategy towards fostering genuine peace dividends. Sherriff illustrates the
challenges of simply getting the different departments of one government working together
for such a starting point. Such examples may provide lessons for facilitating similar efforts
between governments. The UN is similarly confronted by challenges in bringing its myriad
of funds, agencies and programmes together as it begins to incorporate these considerations
into its strategic assessments and frameworks. The linking all of these efforts, however,
requires much greater intention and commitment by all.
4
Editorial
Linking to our third major issue below, several authors see participation, and having the
right stakeholders involved, as being at the heart of conflict and context sensitivity. The
sulha process rests on the assumption that local third party members and the parties
themselves have the intimate knowledge of the context and the values and interests of all
the stakeholders. Tarabeih, Shmueli and Khamaisi point to the need for intervention panels
to be professionally trained in conflict analysis frameworks, thus potentially integrating
local indigenous processes with the professional outside experts to form a stronger
framework to tackle any resource-based conflict. Several authors, however, caution against
processes led by external experts. Salcedo argues that external expert-led efforts mostly
reflect development goals rooted in a Western paradigm and lack sensitivity to cultural
values, priorities and expectations of local communities. Abitbol asserts the pressing need
for integrating a conflict-sensitivity framework in the World Bank feasibility study process
to clarify basic questions of what is ‘social feasibility’ in a conflict region and what are the
socio-political implications of the RSDSC.
Delving deep within issues of context, Salcedo makes a case for rethinking development
with ‘full awareness not just of each actor’s point of view, but more fully of the context
from which those views emerge’, which we can refer to as their ‘contextual standpoint’ or
culture. She argues that universally espoused paradigms run into difficulties when they
are inserted into local dynamics, and that there must be greater reflection about the
‘geopolitics of knowledge’ in advancing development more promotive of peacebuilding.
Ensuring Politics Serves Peacebuilding and Development
In many conflict situations, political elites are preoccupied with narrow interests that
consolidate their power, extend their influence or increase their wealth. Such dynamics
can be particularly apparent when natural resources are involved. This is illustrated in the
case of the Red Sea-Dead Sea Canal project, where political and ideological interests threaten
to dictate the processes of development in a way that perpetuates destructive conflictive
relations. The World Bank should work to ensure transparent, participatory and conflictsensitive processes and that the project accurately represents issues at stake and is not
marginalising particular stakeholders.
In the Western Sahara, donors and member states of the United Nations, individually and
collectively, have allowed geopolitical interests to undermine the progress of the political
process. In such cases, given the existing power imbalances, international efforts can
contribute to stagnation by reinforcing the status quo and further harming relationships,
skewing the balance of power and limiting access to resources. The Palestinians in the case
of the RSDSC project and the Sahrawis in Western Sahara both illustrate how this can
occur. Both case studies effectively make strong arguments for the need for transparency
and participation to counter politics.
Sherriff argues similarly for the potential contribution of conflict assessment where it has
local ownership and consensus and is linked to strategy. Such an approach may help to
ensure that conflict assessment processes succeed where they have failed before by
promoting changes in donor behaviour where priorities have been politically or
bureaucratically defined. Silva Leander’s important recommendations to extend the UN’s
political monitoring functions to non-crisis countries where the UN operates without an
explicit political mandate of the Security Council would serve a similar function: putting
research and analysis at the service of wider strategic coordination and programming. In
this case, the important political analysis undertaken in one part of the UN can better
5
Journal of Peacebuilding & Development
work to ensure that development serves, rather than undermines, sustainable peace.
The politics of inclusion and exclusion manifest in other ways and at different levels.
Considering community-based disputes among Arabs in Israel that often can involve Israeli
government development policies, for example, the success of the third party panel in the
environmental sulha intervention depends on the level of their inclusion and the exclusion
of the primary stakeholders and how they deal with the Israeli government policies in any
environmental conflict. Avoiding direct confrontation with the government policies by
involving only leaders who are approved by the government and excluding local leaders
who are in constant political confrontation with government policies can result in outcomes
that are not sustainable. The more inclusive these panels are, the more their resolution is
sustainable and can transform the communities involved.
Fostering Participation and Transparency
in Assumptions, Roles and Agendas
As illustrated throughout this issue, at the heart of both context sensitivity and the role of
politics in peace and development interventions lies the need for the effective participation
and transparency of stakeholders in their assumptions, roles and agendas. This is of course
directly counter to traditional notions of diplomacy and statecraft.
Highlighting the links between the themes of context, politics and transparency in assumptions
partnered with genuine participation of all relevant stakeholders, the Jantzis’ article shows
the need for development and peacebuilding fields to uncover their operating assumptions
and explicitly link and articulate their practices in the light of certain theories of change. In
both development and peacebuilding, they illustrate how practitioners and policymakers
are guilty of implementing theories and projects without sufficient reflection on the
assumptions underpinning them, at times with destructive consequences for local contexts.
Many articles in previous issues of JPD have similarly sought to illustrate the consequences
of such miscommunication in the field when two agencies are working in the same area
with minimal coordination or even understanding of each other’s objectives or rationale.
The Jantzis suggest that practitioners also focus on the need to incorporate conflict analysis
in the process of every peacebuilding intervention, especially in development policies,
which are often shaped by various contradicting theoretical principles.
As alluded to earlier, a lack of transparency in political processes and/or peacebuilding and
development projects can have adverse affects: creating mistrust that undermines a process
(Western Sahara); creating contradictory and/or ill-conceived strategies that undermine
peacebuilding or actually aggravate the conflict (Rwanda); or serving the status quo by
ignoring geopolitical power asymmetries (RSDSC). In the RSDSC case, the heavy reliance on
external technical experts, Abitbol argues, is unlikely to produce a sustainable arrangement.
Donors and third party interventions ensure a process that goes beyond simple and technical
community consultations and substantially engages all stakeholders, especially disadvantaged
groups like Palestinians, who have less access to the international resources to facilitate their
effective participation. This point again illustrates linkages between the themes. In the RSDSC
case, the process is not simply technical but deeply political. In such a setting, donors and
third parties must take into consideration the conflict context – the reality of occupation that
hinders the equal participation of the Palestinians in this process.
Several authors emphasise that an inclusive intervention design is a key tool in increasing
6
Editorial
the transparency in conflict and development contexts. The Jantzis view this as being
characteristic of a transformative process. Tarabeih, Shmueli and Khamaisi, in seeking to
adapt the sulha process for environmental conflicts, underscore the importance of this
dimension, which has not been adequately embedded within the traditional sulha model.
Inclusive intervention design should start with systematic and participatory conflict
assessment. As Sherriff observes, locally owned and locally led processes of conflict
assessment can potentially inspire a wider constituency and build consensus around
strategy. International peacebuilding mechanisms are also needed to address the moral
exclusion of sub-national conflicts, as Wachira highlights in her review of Murithi’s book.
It is likely that the issues of context, politics, and transparency and participation will remain
challenges for both international and local actors alike, although our awareness of their
importance and the tools to ensure that they support rather than undermine peacebuilding
are developing. The fact that they often intersect and overlap should be seen as beneficial, for
it means that by addressing any one area, there is potential to positively impact the other
two. This should be a focus in new peacebuilding and development projects, and perhaps be
underscored in protracted conflict situations, where stagnation over time highlights the need
to redouble efforts to ensure that the fundamentals, and better practices, are adhered to.
7