Tribhuvan University Department of Conflict Peace and Development

Tribhuvan University Department of Conflict, Peace and Development Studies CPDS 5331: Development Studies Unit IV: Development and Peacebuilding Nexus (2 nd Seminar : 23 January 2014) Seminar Facilitation by Khyam Bishwokarma 1

Theoretical Overview of Peacebuilding Practices Peacebuilding: a process, which aims at addressing the issues of conflict in such a way that could prevent the possible violence. . . an overarching term to describe a long-term process covering all activities with the overall objective to prevent violent outbreaks of conflict or to sustainably transform armed conflicts into constructive peaceful ways of managing conflict. (Paffenholz & Spurk 2006)

Theoretical Overview of Peacebuilding Practices Peace Keeping, Peace Making, Peacebuilding Peace Keeping: “… an action to bring hostile parties to agreement, essentially through peaceful means” (Boutros-Ghali 1992) Peace Making: “…removing the tensions between the conflict parties in addressing the causes of violence (Paffenholz 2009) Peace Building: “…preventing and managing armed conflict and sustaining peace…(it) should create conducive conditions for economic reconstruction, development and democratization as preconditions for legitimate democratic order, but should not be equated and thus confused with these concepts(Paffenholz 2009: 7)

Theoretical Overview of Peacebuilding Practices v. Peace Building as a process is guided theoretical stance that it takes. v. There are mainly two theoretical perspectives on peace: Liberal or Democratic Perspectives and Sustainable or Positive Perspective of Peace v None of the perspectives, however, are devoid of shortcomings and criticism; they are not complete in themselves. v They complement to each other in many cases.

Theoretical Overview of Peacebuilding Practices Liberal Theory of Peace v. Based on the ideas shared by the western liberal theorists such as John Locke, Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Jefferson, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, John Maynard Keynes and John Rawls v. Three Pillars of liberal peace theory: 1. Democracy, 2. Economic Interdependence and 3. International Organizations (Newbrander, NA)

Liberal Theory of Peace Global Peace Contributes to Rarely fights to each others Trade Interest of democratic states makes them avoid ware Cooperation Contributes to Democracy Economic Interdependence International Organizations

Liberal Theory of Peace Some Basic concepts v. State of Nature and Organized State (Hobbes’s Leviathan) üAll men are equal at the state of nature; equality of hope to attain their goals lead them to competition with each other. Because all men desire pleasure, they become enemies; each of them wants to weaken the other; hence they are constantly at war at the state of nature. üYet, everyone wants to survive for which they contract each other; hence peace becomes essential for their survival. ü To keep the contractual relations intact, a powerful common body is essential, that body is the government in a form of an organized state

Liberal Theory of Peace Government in democracies are more likely to address the issue of the citizen because üIt comes to the power through election, ü people have a right to vote; they can sack the government if it does not meet their need, ü executive is responsible to an elected legislature v. Accountable relations

Liberal Theory of Peace Kant: World Republic ü Individual in the state of nature and the states: an analogy Just like individuals make a contract to maintain peace in the state of nature, the organized states also can develop a “cosmopolitan constitution” (Kant: On the Common Saying) üThe moral imperative to create a permanent peace could only be satisfied …by “a universal union of states …A cosmopolitan constitution creating such a union, unlike the prevailing public international law, would have a peremptory validity, rather than being merely provisional. The peace that it would establish would be a true and lasting peace, not an ephemeral one (Delahunty & Yoo, 2009: 444).

Liberal Theory of Peace Kant: World Republic ü Creating a world federation could not be viable and impossible from the moral point of view. Unlike individual human being (at the nature of state) organized states or nations are abide by their domestic laws as well; which may not allow them to confederate into a world federation. The idea of world republic therefore can be supported by the ‘negative substitute’ or what Kant believes by democratizing the states.

Liberal Theory of Peace Kant: Democratic Peace Theory Empirical Side Theoretical side -War is possible; therefore democracies have ‘unique contractual advantages’ which allow them to build stable peaceful relations based on multiple selfenforcing bargains -The Surest and best method of securing global peace, protecting human rights and reducing the incidence of mass atrocities is to promote democracy throughout the world

Liberal Theory of Peace v. For Kant, Democracy essentially meant republican where executive and the legislative power were separated; the balance of power could help attain peace. v. Republic form of government, unlike monarchies or other nonrepublic are less likely to wage war because they have to acquire consent of people who ‘have a great hesitation in embarking on so dangerous enterprise’ (Kant, Perpetual Peace) v. Democracies are less likely to go for war : Culturally –organized violence is not a democratic norm. Ethically –citizen of democracies are not generally eager to solve problems at the cost of human life. Structurally a separation of power makes harder for democratic leaders to mobilize for war (Newbrander, NA)

Liberal Theory of Peace Economic Interdependence v. Kant: Trade promotes Peace 1. War hinders commerce therefore people try to avoid it 2. Human desire for trade v. Kant: It is the spirit of trade, which cannot coexist with war, which will, sooner or later, take hold of every people. Since, among all of the power (means) subordinate to state authority, the power of money is likely the most reliable, states find themselves forced… to promote a noble peace and … prevent it(war) by means of negotiations, just as if they were therefore members of a lasting alliance… In this way nature guarantees perpetual peace through the mechanism of human inclinations itself (Cited in Newbrander, na: 41)

Liberal Theory of Peace Economic Interdependence v. Economically important trade and investment limit the likelihood that a state will use force against its commercial partner as cooperation enables better results for both parties v. Economically interdependent states are 68 percent less likely than the typical pair of states to be involved in a conflict with military facilites(Oneal, na cited in Newbrander, na: 44) Peace Democracy Cooperation Economic Interdependence

Liberal Theory of Peace Economic Interdependence v. Adam Smith: democracy and economic liberalization and peace are correlated; the higher the level of a free market economy in combination with democracy, the higher the chance of peace v. Montesquieu: international trade and commerce would naturally tend to promote peace as two countries are reciprocally dependent trade partner

Liberal Theory of Peace International Organizations v. Peace does not have political border, its an issue not only of human but of the humanity v. International organizations have a great stake in building peace; they can create pressure or collaborate the states in preventing conflict and addressing its causes in many ways v. International development agencies have been the prominent peacebuilding actors; UN has been a leader.

Liberal Theory of Peace International Organizations v. Demilitarization, the control of small arms institutional reform, improved police and judicial systems, the monitoring of human rights, electoral reform and social and economic development can be valuable in preventing conflict… it requires the UN and the parties to conflict in respect of which peace building activities are to be undertaken (Boutros -Ghali, 1995 The Supplement to an Agenda for peace)

Liberal Theory of Peace: Criticism üLiberals have on occasion supported wars (for example Spanish war (1936 -39) )in the name of Just war. üThe Second World War was led by one of the leading liberal American President Roosevelt üResearch undertaken in favor of liberal peace is misleading for democracies were quite rate until recently – very limited data üDemocracies also do fight –El Salvador fought a war with Hondurus in 1969; Great Britain with Argentina in 1982 (Roy 1998) üDemocratic states in the North Atlantic/western European area, share particular set of historical circumstances and a common cultural heritage –that’s why they avoid war and not because they are the democracies (Cohen)

Thank You