By: Roger Mac Ginty
Key Messages
Peacemaking and peacebuilding often work out of step with one another
Peacemaking and peacebuilding can be better at telling their own stories
The risk appetite across the sector seems to have decreased
Ways in which peacemaking and peacebuilding can be mutually supportive include starting conversations between opponents, seeding ideas, and broadening the constituency of a peace
Making demonstrable links between an elite deal and on-the-ground security and economic conditions is key
Brief Summary
Interviews with 30 senior peacemakers and mediators revealed tensions between peacemaking and peacebuilding. While peacemaking was seen by some as too elite-focused, peacebuilding was seen as “spinning wheels” or having projects on the margins of a conflict that did not actually address the conflict. The question then is: How can peacemaking and peacebuilding work together for better outcomes? A key lies in effective linkage between the two and the ability of each to tell a better story about itself.
The Peacemaking vs. Peacebuilding Divide
The peacemaking vs. peacebuilding mirrors the different approaches used to deal with direct and structural violence. This is reflected in a division of labor, with peacemaking often undertaken by governments and specialist mediators, and peacebuilding a more generalist sector that increasingly stretches into humanitarianism, development, education and other sectors.
The research interviews pointed to a dynamic in which the peacemaking and peacebuilding sectors were out of step with one another and failed to understand the ambitions of the other. One peacebuilder observed of peacemaking, ‘It is easy to get seduced by connections with the elite level. It is easy to think that all you have to do is get agreement at the elite level and then forget about everything below that’. Another noted the need to broaden peace processes so that they become ‘dialogues that involve people across the country, not just the elites.’
Some peacemakers were equally sceptical of the impact of peacebuilding. The key criticism was that it often worked on the margins of conflict but had a limited ability to stop violence. According to one peacemaker, ‘Where peacebuilding fails is the interaction with the politics of power. Too often peacebuilding is situated in a very civilian context … and has limited ability to shift the politico-military dial’. One peacebuilder reflected that their sector worked on ‘everything and nothing’ and pointed to multiple capacity-building and inclusion projects that may impact locally but did not address the wider conflict.
Another peacebuilder reflected on a shift in the sector, ‘I feel like in my early days, we worked on conflict resolution. We didn’t work on gender or civil society. These issues are important but they will not build a peace process.’
The interviews highlighted the differences between working on conflict (peacemaking) and working in conflict (peacebuilding) and how getting the two to work in sync was difficult. While both peacemakers and peacebuilders could point to achievements, each sector struggled to translate tactical successes into strategic gains.
An Aversion to Risk
Multiple interviewees observed a risk aversion across the peacemaking and peacebuilding sectors. One mediator pointed to a ‘buccaneering’ spirit when they first worked in the sector. The decline in the risk appetite was partly linked to the professionalization and bureaucratization of the sector, as well as legal restrictions. Organizations, quite understandably, do not want to put their employees in harm’s way. But some interviewees attributed a shying away from risk to a growth in the peacebuilding sector and the ability of organizations to undertake projects that ‘work around conflict, rather than focus on it’. One interviewee noted that ‘a lot of work is on what is deemed possible. The level of ambition is not there’.
Mediators pointed to the catalytic and exemplar value of calculated risk. One mediator reflected on a case in which in-country actors noticed that embassies and donors had started taking small risks and so felt emboldened to investigate options for negotiation.
The political economies of the sector, with its short-term projects and the need to pleased donors, were seen as a brake on boldness and creativity. One interviewee brought up the example of venture capitalists ‘investing in ten things in the knowledge that nine will fail but one will succeed big.’
A Way Ahead
Interviewees pointed to many ways in which peacemaking and peacebuilding could be mutually supportive, especially given the non-linear and complex ways in which wars become less violent. One peacebuilder summed up the challenge thus, ‘Mediating, implementing and sustaining peace – we know the fundamentals but how do we show the causality that all of these things are going to work together?’
Many interviewees pointed to the need to bridge the link between an elite talks process and settlement on the one hand, and the lives of people at the local level on the other. Without demonstrable benefits, why should people on the ground support broader peace initiatives? Key ways of linking peacebuilding with peacemaking included:
using peacebuilding schemes on practical civil issues, such as environmental protection, as a vehicle to prompt conversations on more sensitive conflict-related issues.
seeding ideas for change, or float ‘test balloons’, through peacebuilding initiatives and acculturating key players to the possibility of change
broadening constituencies for peace through peacebuilding
using civil society to assess local attitudes to peace
All of these ways of linking peacemaking and peacebuilding depend on context and timing, but they point to the usefulness of peacebuilding-type before and during negotiations or a peace process. In the event of an elite peace deal, then ‘the benefits need to feel tangible for everyone.’ This applies particularly to on-the-ground security that, in turn, facilitates economic and cultural activity as well as better service delivery.
A common theme in the interviews was about how poor many peacemakers and peacebuilders were in telling their own stories to each other, and more generally to political and public audiences. For peacemakers, much of their work is sensitive and necessarily confidential. Moreover, a good deal of it is state-to-state activity and stays out of the public realm. Peacebuilders were upfront in saying how poor they were at making the case for their work but also noted that governments rarely understood the purpose or value of peacebuilding. As one observed, they have a defence ministry and understand that but they don’t have a peace ministry.
Interviewees underlined the need to invest more energy in communication, stressing the added value of their sectors. One noted how ‘We need to work with top marketing companies’ and organize campaigns that resonate with publics, donors and key stakeholders.
About the Research
Thirty senior mediators and peacemakers were interviewed in June- August 2024 on effectiveness in peacemaking. All had over two decades of experience and had worked in multiple contexts. They worked for international organizations, governments, INGOs, NGOs, and donor organizations. A number worked independently. They mainly worked in Track 1.5 and often between Tracks 1 and 2. The interviews were conducted via Zoom and on the basis of complete anonymity for individuals and employer organizations. Questions centred around effectiveness and “What works?” in mediation and peacemaking rather than on peacebuilding.
About the Author & Acknowledgments
Roger Mac Ginty is a Professor at the Durham Global Security Institute and the School of Government and International Affairs, Durham University. The author is grateful to the interviewees and the Effective Peace Initiative.
Contact: roger.macginty@durham.ac.uk
X @rogermacginty
How to Cite
Roger Mac Ginty (2024) ‘How can Peacemaking and Peacebuilding work better together?’
コメント