International Relations

C01(b) - Peacebuilding 1: Evaluating Theory & Practice

Date: Jun 3 | Time: 08:30am to 10:00am | Location:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Ruby Dagher (University of Ottawa)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Aisha Ahmad (University of Toronto)

Exclusionary Politics, Power of the People, and Local Governance Mechanisms: A Report Card Ruby Dagher, University of Ottawa Nana Afia Aku Ofori-Yentumi, University of Ottawa Prolonging Crisis: Evaluating the Application of Neoliberal Peace in post-Gaddafi Libya Yasha Seissan, York University The Democratic Peacekeeping Hypothesis Revisited Jamie Levin

The Democratic Peacekeeping Hypothesis Revisited: Jamie Levin (St. Francis Xavier University)
Abstract: As peacekeeping transformed from limited efforts to maintain peace in post-conflict environments to robust efforts at peace enforcement the composition of peacekeepers has shifted, from wealthy democratic countries, to developing countries with sometimes precarious regimes. This shift opened a debate about the political effect of peacekeeping not just in conflict zones but also on the contributing states. The “democratic peacekeeping theory” holds that participation in peacekeeping has a stabilizing effect for contributors, socializing them to the norms and building the necessary institutions for democracy. Others hold that peacekeeping as akin to a resource curse; missions provide a valuable source of revenue which can engender military autonomy from civilian politicians and the capacity to intervene in domestic affairs. Research to date has provided limited tests of these theories. In order to flesh out these mechanisms further, we examine how peacekeepers and international actors respond to regime crisis. Do contributor militaries have shorter interventions into civilian politics? Do they drawdown peacekeeping missions or maintain involvement? Do international actors to refrain from criticizing contributor militaries when they intervene in politics, or is international pressure higher than usual? We assess whether peacekeeping has any tangible effect on military and international behaviour.

Prolonging Crisis: Evaluating the Application of Neoliberal Peace in post-Gaddafi Libya: Yasha Seissan (York University)
Abstract: My research aims to critically analyze peacebuilding approaches currently adopted by Western powers within Libya. Over a decade after the ousting of Muammar Qadhafi’s regime, international organizations like the United Nations (UN), and North Atlantic Treaty organization (NATO), have neglected to provide an effective peacebuilding strategy, only going as far as to introduce new forms of regulation pertaining to neoliberal governmentality. More importantly, international responses to the conflict are reflective of global dynamics of capitalist expansion and accumulation and signifies how peace operations serve an ordering function. Accordingly, it is essential to problematize the ways in which the international community has alienated local contexts of peace in favor of a neoliberal peacebuilding approach. The research presented is shaped by critiques of the dominant liberal intervention and peacebuilding paradigms. The research will address the extent to which humanitarian intervention is a tool utilized to establish Western economic and ideological dominance in Libya and how regime change and peacebuilding operations serve as a function of world ordering. My research will contribute to a deeper understanding of the nature of western led intervention in the context of the broader Arab spring and the extent to which international engagement in peacebuilding processes are instrumental in consolidating hegemonic control over the region. I argue that policies of intervention and post-conflict development have been complicit in a hegemonic strategy embedded within the liberal peacebuilding architecture. The paper contributes well to panels that focus on international relations, and political economy as the paper notes the ways in which policies of interference are utilized as a tool of hegemonic control.

Exclusionary Politics, Power of the People, and Local Governance Mechanisms: A Report Card: Ruby Dagher (University of Ottawa), Nana Afia Aku Ofori-Yentumi (University of Ottawa)
Abstract: Exclusionary politics exist in all societies and under all types of political systems, in war-torn areas and in non-violent situations. One main response to this exclusionary politics, especially in situations of violence, is to promote official democratic political systems at all levels in society. It is believed that bringing power closer to the people allows for a better tackling of exclusionary politics and for the development of more inclusive democratic systems. This process of moving decisions closer to the people is referred to as decentralization and runs the gamma from the simple transfer of centrally controlled units (deconcentration) to complete power transfer to the locally established and controlled units (devolution). However, our literature review study of decentralization in 35 countries across the world in all continents (except for Australia) has demonstrated that exclusionary politics continues, mostly unabated. Our research also demonstrates that the lack of adequate success questions the underlying theories of decentralization and the underlying presumptions that are often made. It also questions the consistent tendency towards devolution in response to the challenges that this approach faces. Finally, our research notes the inability of this approach to properly (a) address the historical and actual context, causes of exclusionary politics, and the resulting decreases in state legitimacy, (b) the transfer and/or amplification of exclusionary politics to local levels, (c) the capture of systems by elites at the local level who are, in turn, captured by elites at the central level, and (d) the transformation of conflict into localized violent systems.