Building peace after civil conflict

At War’s End,

Building Peace After Civil Conflict

by Roland Paris

- BOOK REVIEW -

        The book At War’s End, written by Roland Paris was published in 2004. The core of the book is to study the peace building missions launched following several civil wars between 1989 and 1999.

        Roland Paris is a Professor of Political Science And International Affairs at the University of Boulder, Colorado. He is an award-winning scholar (including the Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order and six awards for teaching and public service) and he is a regular commentator on international affairs in national and local medias. He also had a few political functions in government, most recently as Senior Advisor to the Prime Minister of Canada. Previously, he worked in the Privy Council Office of the Canadian government, the Department of Foreign Affairs, and the Federal-Provincial Relations Office. He has also been Director of Research at the Conference Board of Canada, the country’s largest think tank, and served on a ten-member group of international experts advising the Secretary-General of NATO.

        Peace building missions aim at consolidating peace after internal conflicts. The strategy of these missions focuses on democratization and marketization. The author studies the effectiveness of the strategy. In the book he analyzes the problems of this method and he provides his solutions to make the established peace stay strong after the departure of the peace builders.

        His study focuses on the civil wars of the 90’s. As he says « the nature of the threat posed by [civil conflicts is] both humanitarian and strategic » (p.1). Indeed, these violences lead to the death of many civilians, also called non-combatants (mass executions, genocides,…). Besides, these internal conflicts often represent a threat to the regional and even global stability (international terrorism, mass refugees movements…).

        In response to these challenges, the international community launched missions to manage the problem of state failure. In ongoing conflict, they provided humanitarian help and protection to the populations. In the aftermath of civil wars, missions were aiming at preventing a recurrence of violence, these mission became known as « peace-building operations ».  From 1990 and 1999, 14 peace building have been deployed, these missions are the ones that the author studied for the book. Since 1999, the early years of the twenty-first century have witnessed the deployment of many new missions, for both internal and international conflicts.

        The method of democratization and marketization to foster peace is called « Wilsonianism » by the author, as it is based on Woodraw Wilson’s ideas.

        Only in three cases (Angola, Rwanda, and Liberia) the method of « democratization and marketization » to install peace had the reverse effect and led to the return of hostilities. Indeed, as the author shows in the book, this strategy is very destabilizing for a state already weakened by the war, sometimes it can paradoxically increase the likelihood of the renewed violence in several of these states.

        In this book, the author addresses the problems of the Wilsonianism, without rejecting it in its entirety. He thinks that the goals of democratization and marketization should be preserved, however, he notices that this method can endanger the weak new peace in the states. He thus advises to complete the Wilsonianism with a new peace-building strategy called « Institutionalization before liberalization ». This strategy has the goal to minimize the destabilizing effects of the Wilsonianism by establishing domestic institutions beforehand.

        As he says « Institutionalization before liberalization may at first glance seems more costly and time consuming the the « quick and dirty » approach to liberalization » (…) the objective of this approach however is ultimately to achieve more successful transitions to market democracy in countries that are vulnerable to the destabilizing effects of rapid liberalization, and thus to establish a more durable peace » (p.8).

        The book is divided in three parts, the first one « Foundations » deals with the origins of the peace-building theory currently applied, the second one « The peace-building record » is composed of several case studies, the last one « problems and solutions » deals with the limits of the current peace-building theories and the improvements that can be done.

PART I - FOUNDATIONS

The origins of peace-building

        In the first chapter, the author studies the origin of the strategy « democratization and marketization ».

        During the Cold War, peace building consisted in monitoring the cease-fire with a lightly armed military force (Ex: in the conflict between Egypt and Israel). Peacekeepers were asked to stay out of domestic politics, they were neutral. This neutrality was cause by the situation of Cold War between the countries part of the UN Council. There was a fundamental disagreement on whether or not liberal democracy and market oriented economics could be promoted during peace-building interventions.  

        After the Cold Was however, the UN decided in 1989 to launch its first major peace building mission in Namibia after a decades-long civil war: it was the first mission to use the strategy of democratization-marketization. The former type of mission continued to be used in some conflicts: Boutros-Boutros Ghali, the UN Secretary General proposed a distinction between peacekeeping/peace-enforcement and peace-building.

        In peacekeeping, the UN had a quasi-monopoly. But, peace-building in its complexity, diversity and cost requires a division of the labour between the UN and other international agencies: NATO, OSCE, IMF… There’s no centralized peace building authority but all the organizations pursue the same goals: install democratization and marketization.

        The « democratization and marketization » strategy includes: promoting civil and political rights, administering political elections, drafting a national Constitution, training police and justice officials, encouraging the development of a free-market economy within and across the country’s borders. and reducing the role of the state in the economy. Indeed, at that time, there was a quasi-consensus on the idea that democracy as an ideal and, almost the entire world had adopted the fundamental elements of a market-economy. The model is widely viewed as the most appropriate model for organizing human societies.

        Besides, Boutros-Boutros Ghali explains in his policy statement called « Agenda for democratization » that democracy is necessary as it guarantees the legitimacy of the leader freely chosen by his people, who trust him and will thus respect the laws he’ll make. The social contract between the leader and his people allows to build a long-lasting peace. According to him, « peace, development and democracy are inextricably linked ». This is why the UN embraced the « democratization - marketization » strategy.

The liberal peace thesis

        In the chapter « The liberal peace thesis », the author explains the origins of the wilsonian theory.

        The idea that liberalization is a remedy to conflict isn’t new: it was one of the central principles of the US President W.Wilson’s foreign policy at the end of the First World War. Indeed, Wilson wanted to spread the US model to promote peace in both domestic and international affairs.

        Inspired by J.Lock and A.Smith, the President Wilson believed that a world order based on democracy, constitutional protections, free trade and commerce, democratic self determination of the people and the creation of a League of Nation were necessary to keep the peace. He believed that these principles were essential to civil peace and to intestate peace.

        By applying these ideas to the Versailles settlement, Wilson became the first statesman to articulate what is now called the liberal peace thesis, or the notion that democratic forms of government are more peaceful in their internal and international relations than other forms of government.

        Democratic countries are ideals as conflicts that might become violent are resolved through votes, negotiations, compromises, and mediation. They are thus less likely than any other kind of state to experience wars.

        However, the author is skeptical regarding that thesis which claims that democracy necessarily enhances international peace. Indeed, he shows that the scholars Mansfield and Snyder have pointed out the fact that transitional countries from authoritarian to democratic rule, are more likely than either established democracies and non-democracies to get involved in an international war to build there domestic political support.

        Besides, the author notices that, some studies suggest that democratization enhances domestic peace whereas others claim the opposite. Indeed, any kind of change of « regime type », or transformation of the regime is often accompanied by increased civil violence which means that transitioning states are likely to experience civil conflict.