“New” Sustainable Peacebuilding?

(1)

A Critical Examination of the United Nations Change in

Peacebuilding Approach

Marcus Lindh

(2)

Abstract

Building peace and preventing the emergence of new and existing conflicts is one of the fundamental objectives of the United Nations, seen as deep down as in the charter of the organization. As the United Nations has existed for some time their peacebuilding framework has changed on several occasions, with the most recent change taking place in 2016. This paper is concerned with how this new United Nations approach to peace from 2016 has changed the way in which the United Nations understands peacebuilding. As this paper is focused on peacebuilding, this study applies the theoretical lenses of Liberal peace theory, critical peacebuilding and Scandinavian peace theory to critically examine the current United Nations approach as well as the previous approach to peacebuilding. The use of the ‘What’s the problem represented to be?’ approach allows for the identification of how the peace frameworks of the United Nations problematizes peacebuilding, the underlying assumptions as well as the effects. From this, it is determined that the new/current United Nations approach to peacebuilding has not significantly changed. Both frameworks are characterized by state-centricity with a focus on the necessity of liberal-democratic values being in place in order for sustainable peace to be achieved. The findings did show that the new approach emphasizes more interaction with local actors in the peace process however this emphasis was underpinned with a focus on peace through the state and not through the local.

Key words: Peacebuilding, Sustainable Peace, United Nations, Liberal Peace, Critical Peacebuilding, Scandinavian Peace Theory

(3)

1 Introduction

Peace, conflict prevention and security have been fundamental duties, objectives and goals of the United Nations since its inception in 1945 and can be clearly seen dating back to the United Nations Charter. Within the Charter, the first main purpose of United Nations is stated to be to maintain worldwide peace and security (UN Charter, ch. 1, art. 1). The Charter continues by emphasizing that the organization and its members must ensure that peace and security is maintained and that the principles of the United Nations should be adhered to by all members (ibid. art. 2). This duty of both the United Nations and the members states to maintain peace and security is one that has had mixed results over the past 75 years. How the United Nations has approached peacebuilding and conflict prevention has been an ongoing process since 1945 with several different frameworks and approaches being developed to uphold the previously mentioned principles outlined in the UN Charter. The most recent development was made in 2016 when the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly came to a consensus on a new overarching framework for building peace, detailed in twin resolutions A/RES/70/262 and S/RES/2282.

The United Nations’ contemporary change in its approach towards peacebuilding and sustaining peace can be seen as taking place alongside the change in the scholarly and theoretical discourse regarding peace and peacebuilding that began in the 1990s after the conclusion of the Cold War. This discourse surrounding peace and peacebuilding primarily revolved around the debate between the notions of building peace from above, through the state, and building peace from below through local channels (discussed further in chapter 2 section 2.1). In this debate, the United Nations approach towards peace has always been associated with the understandings that peace is built through the development of liberal states. Due to this, many of the failures of United Nations peacebuilding efforts have been attributed to their adherence to this type of peacebuilding. There is a risk that if the United Nations continues to follow these principles and not shift to more local forms of peacebuilding, then future peacebuilding efforts by the United Nations would also result in failures and not lead to sustainable peace being established. This is, however, an ongoing debate and discourse, which will be discussed in the following chapter.

(5)

1.1 Relevance to Peace and Conflict Studies

The issue discussed and analyzed within this study is relevant to the field of Peace and Conflict Studies due to that the United Nations is one of the primary and important organizations working within the field of peace and conflict prevention. Additionally, this study engages with ideas, concepts and theories important to peace and conflict studies. This is primarily the interaction between peacebuilding and local actors and the discourse surrounding what approach or approaches to peace and sustaining peace are the best mainly focused on the discussion regarding state centric and local peacebuilding approaches.

(6)

2 Previous Research

This chapter will provide a presentation of previous research done regarding the discourse relating to peacebuilding mentioned in the previous chapter, as well as the United Nations Peacebuilding Architecture. This is done in order to obtain an overview of research produced so far within the field to see potential research gaps within which this research paper fits in.

2.1 Peace (building) Discourse

Peace and the establishing and building of peace within areas of the world that are affected by conflict has been of great focus within many different disciplines and institutions. However, which methods of how to reach peace are best and most effective is a discussion that has many different sides and perspectives. Due to this, much research and literature has been produced regarding this discussion to try and find the best and most effective approach to peace not only in terms of initially achieving peace but also how to sustain peace. One of the most prominent and most seen discussions that has produced much research and literature surrounds the concept of liberal peace and the discussion regarding local versus global peacebuilding. Liberal peace is the most prominent global peacebuilding concept and is characterized by democratization, free and globalized markets, human rights, the rule of law and neo-liberal-development (Richmond, 2006, p. 262). After the end of the Cold War, much of the peacebuilding discourse was based around the concepts of liberal peacebuilding particularly from the UN (Wallis, 2018, p. 83). However, after the failures of many peace interventions, such as Rwanda and Bosnia, debates surrounding the effectiveness of liberal and global peacebuilding emerged (ibid.). What grew out of this debate was a shift towards a local approach and understanding of peacebuilding with a focus on civil society and local actors, primarily pioneered by literature produced by John Paul Lederach. In his book on building peace in divided societies, Lederach (1997, p.94) states that sustaining peace is rooted in local actors and cultures and that local actors should be seen as a resource and not only as a recipient in peacebuilding. This understanding of how sustainable peace is best achieved is shared by research done by Adam Curle. From his research, Curle (1994) concluded that the potential of peacemaking is best found in the communities within the conflict. Due to this, local peacemakers should be empowered

(7)

and developed and sociocultural structures and practices that are indigenous should be built (ibid.).

Even though there has been a popular shift towards a more local understanding and approach to peacebuilding, as previously detailed, there still exist obstacles to this shift. Most of the obstacles are tied to the structures and fabric of liberal peace and the political economies that support it (Ginty and Richmond, 2013, pp. 777-779). In their article on the local turn of peacebuilding, Ginty and Richmond (ibid.) outline 4 primary obstacles to local peacebuilding. The first obstacle is related to the trend of peacebuilding and peacebuilding interventions being standardized. This trend can lead to local approaches being crowded out and the deviation from the norm of local variations (ibid.). The second obstacle is that the focus on the local contradicts universalism which is the core of liberal peace and its notion of universal rights (ibid.). The third obstacle relates to the epistemologies and research used to see the local by actors within liberal peace. Several proponents of liberal peace find difficulties in seeing the local and the standardized formats used by international organizations cannot fully capture nuances that are local (ibid.). The final obstacle is that local peacebuilding is co-opted and neutralized by orthodox peacebuilding approaches. This is mainly due to that the orthodox approaches have greater access to resources and material power and for local actors to gain access to these resources they have to conform to orthodox language, practices and norms (ibid.).

As seen, the criticism and shift away from the traditional, liberal approach to peace to a more local approach is one that was and still is quite popular within peace research. However, even though this new approach and understanding of peace is viewed with such high regard there still exist challenges to this approach. In an article on the dilemmas of this local turn of peacebuilding, Mathieu (2017, p. 37) argues that this approach has the risk of producing a stigma related to the ‘different’ local. Within local peacebuilding there is a desire and emphasis on studying the difference of the local in order to enable peace interventions to avoid ethnocentrism (ibid.). Mathieu, however,

(8)

difference as power relations, that difference of the local is internal to peacebuilding and lastly the identification of the Self from whom difference is constructed (ibid.).

2.2 United Nations Peacebuilding Architecture

As peace, peacebuilding and conflict prevention are such important and fundamental concepts and principles of the United Nations, much research has been done studying the United Nations’ approach to peace and the frameworks that have been created to establish peace. Particularly of interest in research done on this topic is the effectiveness of United Nations peacebuilding, specifically the United Nations Peacebuilding Architecture (PBA). Within this research there exists mixed conclusions on how effective UN peacebuilding is. In a paper done by the Commission on Global Security and Governance, Coning and Tschirgi (2015, p.1) describe the UN peacebuilding architecture as a marginal player in the field of peacebuilding that remains largely ineffective. They state that this shortcoming of the PBA is due to several problems including the changing nature of conflicts as well as the design of the PBA itself (Coning and Tschirgi, 2015). This understanding of the ineffectiveness of the PBA as a result of its original design is shared and added to by Bujones et al (2014) in their study on the PBA. In their paper they state that the flaws of the PBA began to be seen already during the negotiations regarding the founding resolutions (Bujones et al, 2014, p. 4). One of the main flaws they point out is the PBA’s lack of independent authority and decision-making power, as it served as an advisory body to the Security Council and General Assembly (ibid.). However, in their paper, as a result of interviews with New York-based actors within the UN, Bujones et al (ibid., p. 8) also detail that the PBA, specifically the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), has played a vital role in providing diplomatic platforms for countries which do not have a large diplomatic presence as well as supporting strategies of peacebuilding and national development. This point, on the other hand, is disputed by Call (2015) in his article on the problems with peacebuilding. He argues that the Peacebuilding Committee has had success in mobilizing attention and resources, however those cases have been isolated to particular crisis junctures (Call, 2015). In addition to this, Call (ibid.) states that the PBC only has 6 countries on its agenda after nearly a decade with no new country added in over several years.

(9)

In addition to the United Nations peacebuilding architecture being scrutinized in regard to its structure and design, criticism has also been made regarding the guiding principles in relation to how the PBA and the United Nations approaches and practices peacebuilding. These criticisms reflect the previously discussed peace discourse surrounding liberal peace and critical (local) peacebuilding. In his article studying United Nations peacebuilding in Guinea-Bissau, Cavalcante (2014) argues that peacebuilding has been unsuccessful primarily due to the peace approach having a strong basis in liberal peace. The reason for this, according to Cavalcante (ibid.), is due to the United Nations focus on approaching peacebuilding from the top-down with the goal of establishing a liberal, democratic state in Guinea-Bissau with a market-based economy.

This point of view is shared by Newman, Paris and Richmond (2009) in their book on Liberal peacebuilding. They add on to Cavalcante’s view with a more general perspective stating that the type of peacebuilding approach taken by the United Nations, with its basis in liberal peace, is not always appropriate or suitable for societies that are in state of divide or conflict that do not have the same stable institutions that are taken for granted in Western democracies (ibid, p. 12). These values and ideas of creating peace through liberal democracy, human rights, etc. are not necessarily universal or can be universally applicable and in some cases may lead to an exacerbation of social, economic or political conflict (ibid.).

(10)

3 Research Question, Problem and Aim

This chapter will present the research problem, aim and research question of this study as well as the chosen material. Additionally, the disposition of this paper will be presented with the chapter concluding with the delimitations of this study.

3.1 Research Problem

As stated in the introduction, peace and conflict prevention have been important principles of the United Nations since its beginning, however whether or not the United Nations has been successful in maintain those principles is questionable. During the 75 years of its existence, the United Nations has made several attempts to improve upon their frameworks and understandings of how to approach peace and conflict prevention in response to the change in nature and characteristics of conflicts, especially seen during the 1990s and the end of the Cold War. However, even with these attempts at improving the framework and approach for peace to better suite contemporary conflicts, modern trends show a worldwide spike in violent conflicts in addition to unparalleled levels of forced displacement (Guterres, 2018, p.1). Clearly, previous peacebuilding approaches of the United Nations have not been as effective as intended, as demonstrated by the previous research on United Nations peacebuilding. Not only that, but as shown as well in the previous research section, the foundation of the United Nations peacebuilding framework has been built on strategies and approaches to peace shown to be ineffective, non-inclusive and too top-down focused.

The failures of peacebuilding through these ineffective, non-inclusive and too top-down methods focused on liberal values, attributed to the United Nations, can be readily seen in the well referenced cases of Afghanistan and Iraq. Within these cases, both states were in conflict wherein the explanation, mainly from western actors such as the United Sates and the United Nations, was described as the lack of the states adhering and respecting liberal values such as democracy, the rule of law, human rights, etc. (Herring, 2008). Peace through processes such as democratization were installed in order to build a state on the basis of liberal values in order to establish peace, however this failed in both cases and lead to even more conflict and a context with increasingly fragile and corrupt states (ibid).

(11)

If the United Nations is and/or has not been able to effectively change its discourse surrounding peacebuilding, primarily relating to their current and future peacebuilding framework, by making it more effective in dealing with these worrying trends and moving away from outdated, unproductive and ineffective peacebuilding approaches then United Nations peacebuilding could remain problematic and possibly lead to the exacerbation of conflicts that the organization is trying to stop, like for example in Iraq and Afghanistan. This could also lead to people and member states losing confidence in the United Nations and their ability to help build peace and uphold their principles of worldwide peace and security.

3.2 Aim and Research Question

As seen and discussed in the previous chapter, much of the research and literature on United Nations peacebuilding and conflict prevention is centered around discussing its effectiveness and shortcomings and the literature on peace discourse is centered on the debate regarding Liberal peace and Critical peace. The focus of the research is on the problems of the United Nations in their approach to peacebuilding adhering to the principles of Liberal peace, seen to be an ineffective and problematic approach to peace, from the perspective of local peacebuilding understanding. Since the United Nations recent peacebuilding and sustainable peace approach is quite new not much research has been conducted on it in relation to the principles of its approach to peacebuilding. This is especially the case in relation to how it fits in with the previously discussed peacebuilding discourse and if it follows the popular shift of going from an understanding of peacebuilding derived from liberal peace to the type of peace approach focused on the local aspects of peacebuilding.

The aim of this study is therefore to examine in what ways the United Nations has shifted the discourse on peacebuilding and conflict prevention from its previous peacebuilding architecture to its new agenda and framework on peacebuilding and sustainable peace.

(12)

As this thesis is concerned with the United Nations change in peacebuilding discourse the following research question is asked:

How has the discourse on peacebuilding changed in the United Nations approach to peacebuilding between the previous peacebuilding approach and the new agenda for peacebuilding and sustainable peace?

In order to achieve this aim and answer the research question the material that will be used and analyzed in this study consist of the following documents from the United Nations:

1) Twin UN resolutions A/RES/70/262 and S/RES/2282 (2016)

2) UN Report “Peacebuilding and Sustainable Peace” A/72/707-S/2018/43 (2018) 3) UN Report “An Agenda for Peace” A/47/277-S/2411 (1992)

4) UN resolution “2005 World Summit Outcome” A/RES/60/1 (2005)

To study and analyze the material and collect the requisite information in order to achieve the aim and answer the research question of this research paper, four operational questions will be used based in Carol Bacchi’s “What’s the problem represented to be?” approach. The chosen method and operational questions will be presented and further elaborated on in chapter 6 Methodological Framework. Additionally, three theoretical lenses will be applied in connection to the WPR approach to analyze the material. The theoretical lenses will be used to not only understand the information gained from the material, but also to extract the information necessary to answer and apply the four operational questions of the WPR approach.

3.3 Disposition

This paper consists of 7 chapters. The first chapter includes the introduction to the study and the study’s relevance to the field of Peace and Conflict Studies. Chapter 2 presents the previous research regarding the topic of peacebuilding discourse and the United Nations peacebuilding architecture including gaps within the previous research. In Chapter 3, the research problem, aim and research question are presented including the material that will be analyzed and the delimitations of this study. In Chapter 4, the theoretical framework is put forward with based on Liberal peace theory, Critical peacebuilding and Scandinavian peace theory, detailing how the problematize peace and

(13)

the proposed solutions to those problems. Chapter 5 presents the methodological framework of this study including sub-sections on the operational questions and selection of material. Chapter 6 is the analysis itself which will be divided based on the operational questions of this study, discussed in chapter 6. Lastly, Chapter 7 consist of the conclusion and main findings of the study ending with a discussion on future research.

3.4 Delimitations

In this study, previous and current United Nations approaches to peace and peacebuilding were analyzed. To do this, four documents were chosen that represented the two approaches. A more comprehensive study could have been completed analyzing more documents and going even further back in time to get a complete scope of the previous United Nations approach to peace. This study was limited to four documents in order to make the analysis clearer and fit within the timeframe of this study.

The findings of this study are drawn from United Nations documents using the WPR approach. As a result, only the information found within the documents could be analyzed. Using another research design, for example revolving the use of oral history or a form of interview with members within the United Nations, other information could be gathered that is not be possible to be gained from the documents.

(14)

4 Theoretical Lenses

This section introduces three theories and understandings surrounding peace and peacebuilding. The approaches to peace that will be presented are Liberal Peace Theory, Critical Peacebuilding, discussed in the previous research section, and Scandinavian Peace Theory. These theories have been chosen for this study due to that they offer a lens to understand the principles of both past and present United Nations peacebuilding approaches in order to see how the approach has changed. As shown in the previous research discussed in chapter 2, Liberal peace and Critical peacebuilding represent two of the more popular understandings and perspectives on peace and Scandinavian peace theory serves to work as a middle ground between the other two theories. This chapter will be divided into subsections based on the theories wherein how the theories problematize peace will be presented as well as what solutions to peace are proposed, loosely based on the WPR approach that will be used and discussed later in this paper.

4.1 Liberal Peace Theory

As mentioned in the previous research section, the understanding, concepts and principles that dominated much of the past peace, peacebuilding and conflict prevention approaches and frameworks, including the United Nations, were derived from and based on Liberal peace theory. Even though it was never explicitly stated that this was the case it was clearly seen in how states, such as the United States, and intergovernmental organizations like the United Nations presented their understanding and approaches to peace.

As outlined by the theory, the primary problems of achieving peace and preventing conflicts within the Liberal peace understanding is the existence of states that are perceived to be fragile or failing and their tendency to fall back into a state of conflict. This is a result and consequence of these failed and fragile states not having the capacity or even the will to protect their populations (Richmond, 2004, pp. 95-96). These fragile states are seen from the Liberal peace perspective to be a security threat to their own populations as well as being dangerous to the security of the region they exist in and the security of the international community as they can serve as potential havens for terrorist groups, international organized crime and drug trafficking (ibid). From the logic of Liberal peace this is due to that these fragile and weak states lack the values of

(15)

liberal democracy and do not participate in an open and capitalist orientated market economy.

The primary proposed solution to the problem of achieving peace in areas of conflict, from the perspective of liberal peace theory, is establishing liberal and democratic state structures with globalized capitalist orientated market economies (Richmond, 2006, p. 292). This is done to combat and overcome the deficiencies of failed and fragile states that liberal peace views as the primary problem to reaching peace. The understanding that building states with liberal foundations and economies will lead to peace and also prevent further conflict is based on the idea that economic interdependence through trade liberalization leads to the stabilization of relations between states (Miklian, 2014, p. 493). This interdependence leads to states being discouraged to start a conflict with one another as the consequences of the conflict would be mutually detrimental and lead to lessening of security (Doyle, 2005, pp. 464-465).

According to Richmond (2006, pp. 293-294) there exist four main strands of thought that make up the liberal approach to peace and how to achieve peace. The four strands are victory peace, institutional peace, constitutional peace and lastly civil peace. Victory peace is defined as peace achieved through military victory and the line of thinking that the hegemony and domination that comes from military victory leads to peace that will survive. Institutional peace is based on anchoring states within a normative and legal context where states agree, multilaterally, on how they should behave and how to enforce that behavior (ibid.). The constitutional peace rests upon the Kantian arguments that peace is based in free trade, democracy and the cosmopolitan notion that individuals are ends in themselves as opposed to means to an end. Lastly, civil peace involves direct action and the attainment or defense of human rights and values. It is based on individualism and rights with a focus on individual agency (ibid.). All of these strands come together and constitute liberal peace and are in focus during peacebuilding projects based in liberal peace, however some actors focus on some strands more than others. The United Nations ‘raison d’être’ is provided by the institutional peace whereas

(16)

important to the research design and the analysis is the focus of Liberal peace on the importance of the state in peacebuilding and the necessity of democracy, human rights, the rule of law and strong institutions for peace to be sustainable.

4.2 Critical Peacebuilding

As discussed in the previous research, within Critical Peacebuilding it is quite clear as to what the problems of achieving peace are. This is due to that Critical peacebuilding emerged as a response, critique and reconceptualization of Liberal Peace and the crisis that Liberal Peace found itself in particularly after the Iraq war (Hobson, 2011). One of the primary problems that Critical Peacebuilding focuses on is the introduction and inclusion of the local within activities and initiatives to build and sustain peace. The problems and consequences can be quite significant if the local aspects of peacebuilding are put to the side or ignored entirely (Richmond and Mitchel, 2011). Within Richmond and Mitchel’s (2011, pp. 328-333) study on peacebuilding in Africa and Europe they demonstrate that local actors will take part in subsistence peacebuilding to a large extent without the support of international and regional actors or the state. In the paper, subsistence peacebuilding is defined as:

“forms [of peacebuilding] that do not draw on international support but emerge from, and are maintained within, local settings often within and beneath civil society (i.e., the local-local) [and] constitute an important form of counterorganisation against the project of liberal state building. [...] subsistence modes of peacebuilding challenge and often threaten to unseat the power structures created by liberal peacebuilding

interventions “(Richmond & Mitchell 2011, p.333).

Additionally, Richmond and Mitchel (ibid) state that local actors will also organize resistance (non-violent or armed) in opposition of the peacebuilding efforts undertaken by the state or international actors. This is due to that the peacebuilding efforts run by the state or other international actors often includes politics that are exclusionary and sees the opposing actors as illiberal and/or illegitimate (ibid.).

As critical peacebuilding is a response and alternative to Liberal peace theory much of the problematizations of achieving peace that critical peacebuilding describes is directly related to the ideas of liberal peace. As discussed previously, Liberal peace focuses on building (liberal) states in order to achieve peace primarily through top-down methods. Critical peacebuilding problematizes this approach of top-down state building by stating

(17)

that the exclusion of local arenas in state centric peace approaches leads to state legitimacy being inhibited and that within post-conflict contexts the state is too weak for efficient government (Brinkerhoff, 2007, p.17).

The primary focus of Critical peacebuilding and the foundation of its solution to peacebuilding is the focus on the legitimacy and inclusion of the local. As demonstrated in the previous research section, specifically section 2.1, after the end of the cold war and the aftermath of several conflicts such as Rwanda and Iraq, peacebuilding initiatives were heavily criticized for being ill-equipped to manage the new forms of conflict that had emerged, mainly intrastate conflicts (Miall, 1992, pp. 185-190). This led to a turn in peace understanding where the focus was shifted to the local, be it actors, communities, cultures, contexts, etc. Critical peacebuilding advocates for and proposes an approach to peace that is more empathetic, sensitive to local cultures, responsive, that encompasses the local and indigenous experiences, particularly those belonging to the subaltern categories, within societies and contexts affected by conflict (Nadarajah and Rampton, 2015, p.53). This type of peace is an emancipatory and everyday approach wherein individuals and communities get on with economic, cultural or survival tasks (Ginty and Richmond, 2013, p. 769).

How peace is achieved within contexts impacted by conflict can include third-party intervention, however the intervention should be guided by the idea that success is not only reached from the top but also from local frameworks of peacebuilding (Fetherston and Nordstrom, 1995, p.113). As a result, long-term peace is achieved through the emphasis of holistic, transformative and cultural practices that build on domestic, internal and local traditions (Leonardsson, 2015, p. 827). Within Critical peacebuilding, “outside” actors can still play an important role to building peace, however they are never more than bystanders when it comes to decision-making on the type of peace that is to be built (ibid.).

Another important aspect to achieving peace that is advanced by critical peacebuilding is decentralization. The understanding behind decentralization is tied to critical

(18)

legitimacy is increased as well as accountability, inclusion and participation in addition to the establishing of stable arenas that exist sub-nationally in which citizens and the state can interact (ibid.).

The inclusion of the local, specifically establishing peace through local actors, channels and communities as opposed to the local merely acting as recipients of peace will be in focus during the analysis. This is due to that this is the most important aspect of achieving peace that is sustainable as proposed by critical peacebuilding.

4.3 Scandinavian Peace Theory

In the understanding of Scandinavian Peace Theory what the problems of achieving peace are have evolved overtime as the nature of conflict and peace have evolved, particularly after the cold war. This is primarily due to that Scandinavian Peace Theory began to be developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s when the global landscape looked different to what it does today. This process of the nature of conflict changing and the understandings of peacebuilding evolving to adapt to these changes is seen in the discourse surrounding local versus liberal peace, as discussed in the previous research section. In this study, the more recent development made within Scandinavian peace theory will be in focus. This is due to that the material that will be analyzed are all relatively modern in relation to when they were produced and released.

Initially, the primary problem of achieving peace identified by Scandinavian peace theory was the lack of understanding of all of the dimensions of peace and conflict. Most notably was the one-dimensional understanding that peace was equal to an absence of war and direct violence (Galtung and Webel, 2009, p.6). This made the understanding of peace quite restricted and ignored other crucial aspects of conflicts that were of great importance to understand in order to achieve peace.

Recently, the problem that is of focus within the theory has shifted. The new ‘problem’ the Scandinavian peace theory has its focus on is that of globalization. The fundamental concepts of Scandinavian peace theory, as well as other understandings of peace, is development, peace and justice (Abrahamsson and Hettne, 2019). Prior to the process of globalization, at least how its manifested today, there existed specific understandings of what peace, development and justice meant. With the process of globalization, the

(19)

conditions and reality that these concepts exist within have changed, some of which is seen in the nature and pattern of conflicts evolving to be intrastate violent political and social conflicts (ibid.). This has led to the concepts of peace, development and justice changing and being widened and deepened. Peace has become more closely tied with the concept of security. This has led to security no longer solely being a question of military security but also financial and climate security as well as security against terrorism, international crime and pandemics (ibid.). Additionally, security has moved from being a focus on state security to a focus on human security. Economic development has evolved into being related to sustainable development and the right to human development and social justice has become a question of human rights initially and developed into a question of global ethics (ibid.). In conjunction with globalization changing the way peace, development and justice is defined, a new type of security dilemma has arisen due to that challenges that face countries are no longer confined to one region or country but are instead global and cross border.

Scandinavian Peace theory also posits another challenge that to achieving and building peace as a result of globalization. Globalization is a process that is uneven as it does not occur at a uniform rate in all places around the world. This has the implication that it is no longer relevant to discuss the world in terms of a north-south divide but rather a side by side coexistence of the global north and south. However, within the global north people feel included in the decision-making and politics of the globalization process whereas in the global south people feel marginalized and excluded from the decision-making processes of the world-system (Abrahamsson and Hettne, 2019). This, in addition to states need for external legitimacy to be seen as trustworthy as a global partner, tends to lead to the states distance to civil society increasing and thus strengthening the difficulties of the state to uphold social stability (ibid.). This can have the implications of populations no longer having loyalty towards the state but rather basing their loyalty on identity. When institutions of a state begin to fail, in-groups based on identity are the only place people can get access to social safety and protection. If the state can no longer uphold the social contract, the social fabric, civil

(20)

Within the problem representations of peace outlined by Scandinavian peace theory we can see that it lies somewhat in-between the points of view of Liberal peace and critical peacebuilding. Scandinavian peace theory emphasizes the need for the local aspects of conflicts to be recognized specifically the role that local identity plays. However, there is still a recognition of the problems that a lack of a proper, functioning state can have and as a result can potentially lead to conflicts.

As stated one of the primary challenges to peace and peacebuilding identified by Scandinavian peace theory is that of globalization. Scandinavian peace theory’s response to this is an increase in international cooperation and global governance in order to deal with the stronger local and global links between security, development and justice. In order to overcome the security-dilemma caused by globalization, Scandinavian peace theory advocates that new international diplomacy models must be established that go beyond decision-making based on consensus and are instead based in some form of multilateral regionalism (Abrahamsson and Hettne, 2019). This change in global governance is not only necessary to deal with the new security-dilemma but also necessary to deal with challenges within local contexts in order to avoid the institutional arrangements necessary for global decision-making being inoperative and ineffective. Here it becomes a question of identity. Identity plays an important role and people need to look at themselves as local and world citizens and understand that their local conditions for peace and prosperity are circumscribed by global circumstances. People must be willing to engage in intercultural dialogue in order to create the conditions for sustainable development and peace (Abrahamsson and Hettne, 2019). Here again we can see how Scandinavian peace theory situates itself in-between liberal peace and critical peacebuilding. Furthermore, Scandinavian peace theory advocates for more negotiation to happen globally as well as a requirement of intercultural dialogue which is necessary to identify and define concepts of peace, justice and development in different social contexts

For Scandinavian peace theory and its relation to the research design, the focus lies in the problems that globalization poses to states and the consequences that it can have on the relationship between the state and its population, potentially leading to more conflict.

(21)

4.4 Theoretical Framework and Research Design

The theoretical framework presented and discussed in the previous sections, in combination with the WPR approach (discussed in chapter 6), will be used to analyze the chosen material to reach the aim and answer the research question. The theories will be applied to the material in order to extract information necessary to answer and make use of the operational questions of this study derived from the WPR approach. How the theories describe the problems to achieving peace and the proposed solutions to those problems, as previously presented, will be used to interpret the information derived from the material with the use of the WPR method and the theoretical lenses. The manner in which peacebuilding and conflict prevention is detailed in the material will be compared to the ideas and understandings of the theories to see what the similarities and differences are and what peace approaches characterize past and present United Nations frameworks. This will allow for an understanding to be reached regarding how the United Nations peacebuilding discourse has changed, thus reaching the aim and answering the research question.

(22)

5 Methodological Framework

In this chapter, the chosen method of “What’s the problem represented to be?” as outlined by Carol Bacchi will be discussed. Additionally, how the methodological approach has been altered to suite this study will be presented which will be the operational questions of this study. Concluding this chapter, the selection of material will be presented and discussed.

5.1 Method

Since this research paper aims to analyze governmental resolutions and reports, the design of this study will be a policy study design. The method that will be utilized to analyze and study the chosen material is “What’s the problem represented to be?”, as developed by researcher Carol Bacchi. From now on “What’s the problem represented to be?” will be referred to the abbreviated form WPR.

The WPR method/approach is chosen to analyze the material due to that it offers a methodological framework for analyzing policy or for this thesis resolutions, as discourse. This approach to studying and analyzing policy is relevant for this study for the purpose of examining how the United Nations has changed its discourse on peacebuilding.

The method of WPR was produced as a tool designed to study the problematization processes of government policies. The method seeks to confront the notion that policy is the manner in which governments best attempt to deal with ‘problems’ (Bacchi, 2009). As stated by Bacchi (2009), governments are viewed to be reacting to problems that are identifiable and fixed as well as existing outside the policy process. This means that the concern is focused around solving ‘problems’ as opposed to looking at how specific policy problems can be understood (ibid.). WPR offers a different approach to looking at policy wherein the researcher sees that there is an understanding and representation of ‘problems’ as a particular sort of ‘problem’ (ibid.). This means, according to Bacchi (2009), that polices gives shape to problems and that policy problems are actively created by governments rather than governments reacting to them. Additionally, WPR lays forward the premise that all policies engage in activities of problematization and

(23)

therefore can be found to contain implicit problem representations. This means that the WPR approach is interested in how problems are constituted or represented. How the ‘problem’ is represented or constituted has significant implications for the manner in which the group or individuals that are involved are treated, how they think about themselves and how the issue is thought of (ibid.). WPR is concerned with how the character of the ‘problem’ or ‘problems’ is constructed as well as the part that the government has in creating and shaping understandings of said ‘problems’ (ibid.).

The WPR approach is structured around six interrelated questions to analyze how problems are represented in policies. The questions are put forward below:

Question 1: What’s the ‘problem’ represented to be in a specific policy or policies?

Question 2: What deep-seated presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the ‘problem’?

Question 3: How has this representation of the ‘problem’ come about?

Question 4: What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the ‘problem’ be conceptualized differently?

Question 5: What effects are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’? Question 6: How and where has this representation of the ‘problem been produced, disseminated and defended? How has it been, and/or can it be disrupted and replaced?

5.2 Operational Questions

According to Bacchi (2012) the WPR method is flexible in nature. This is specifically the case when it comes to the six questions central to WPR listed above. This means that the six questions of WPR can be altered to allow for the best information to be drawn and to better fit with the chosen material of the study. Additionally, not all of the six questions need to be used and instead the researcher can use the questions that best fit the study (Bacchi, 2009). Following this, this study has chosen four of the WPR

(24)

this study. This is similar to why Question 6 was omitted as the goal of the question within the analysis is not relevant to this study in achieving the aim and research question. This is due to that analyzing and discovering how and where the problem has been produced and defended does not help in understanding the change in discourse, problem representation and problem solution within the United Nations peacebuilding framework. As all of the policies, resolutions and agendas of the United Nations are produced and disseminated in the same manner and studying this wouldn’t yield any necessary information.

The operational questions of this study are listed below:

Question 1: How has the United Nations problematized peacebuilding and sustainable peace?

Question 2: What presuppositions or assumptions regarding peacebuilding underlie the representation of the problem?

Question 3: What is left unproblematic in the representation of peacebuilding? Where are the silences? Can the peacebuilding be conceptualized differently?

Question 4: What discursive and lived effects are produced by the problem representations?

Question 1 will concern the scrutinization of the chosen empirical material in order to understand the problem representations. The problematizations uncovered in question 1 will be the point of departure for the analysis and thus the foundation of the WPR approach (Bacchi, 2009,). Question 2 serves the purpose of expanding upon and going deeper into the problem representations discovered in Question 1. Question 2 attempts to identify and subsequently analyze conceptual logics that are the foundation of specific problem representations (ibid.). The objective of Question 3 is to see and understand what within the material fails to be problematized and brings to light contradictions and tensions within the problem representation (ibid.). The critical aspect of the WPR approach is seen in Question 4 where the effects of what has been discussed and discovered in the previous questions will be presented and analyzed.

The four operational questions will work to not only guide the analysis but also to structure the analysis. The analysis will be structured based on the four questions in a

(25)

sequential approach where each question is analyzed one after the other. The operational questions and the theoretical lenses will work hand in hand in order to analyze and compare the current and former peacebuilding approach of the United Nations. Here the theories will act as lenses to extract and interpret information from the material needed to answer the operational questions. How the material problematizes peacebuilding and the proposed solutions to peacebuilding will be put against how the theories problematize peacebuilding and the solutions they propose in order to see what principles the material builds upon. This process will allow for the analysis to see if and how the United Nations approach has changed between the previous approach and the current approach.

5.3 Selection of Material

The reason for choosing United Nations resolutions and documents related to and concerning peace and peacebuilding is due to my interest of peacebuilding in general as well as the change overtime in understanding of how peace and peacebuilding should be approached and the role that the United Nations plays in the discourse surrounding peacebuilding and vice versa.

As for selecting the specific material for this study it was quite clear what type of material would be necessary to analyze in order to achieve the aim of this paper. The two resolutions, A/RES/70/262 and S/RES/2282, and the Secretary-General report, A/72/707-S/2018/43, were needed to see how the United Nations planned to set up and construct their new approach to peacebuilding and conflict prevention. The resolutions put forward the United Nations initial presentation and description of the new peacebuilding framework centered around the concept of sustainable peace, first presented and discussed in the Advisory Group of Experts report on the United Nations Peacebuilding Architecture. The concept of sustainable peace sees a shift in understanding of peacebuilding moving away from the predominately post conflict focused understanding of peacebuilding and focusing on a more comprehensive

(26)

offering new tools and approaches for the United Nations system and its member states. The report was released in the lead up to the high-level General Assembly meeting on peacebuilding and sustaining peace in 2018. These United Nations documents are crucial to analyzing and understanding the new direction and approach the United Nations is taking in regard to peacebuilding and conflict prevention.

The previously mentioned documents are, as stated, important in analyzing the current and future peacebuilding and conflict prevention framework of the United Nations. However, this study is interested in understanding how the framework has changed and therefore a point of reference and comparison is needed to see what the approach looked like previously. The documents that will be used in order to see the past framework/frameworks is the 1992 report done by then United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, A/47/277-S/24111, titled ‘An Agenda for Peace’. The report was commissioned by the Security-Council to analyze the United Nations capacity to maintain world peace. This report and its commission took place close to the conclusion of the Cold War, a time in which the international community and, more importantly, the nature of conflict had changed significantly. With the end of the Cold War, the United Nations was no longer crippled as during the Cold War and now had the opportunity to regain a position of being able to promote and adhere to the principles of the United Nations Charter specifically in relation to maintaining global peace and security. Additionally, the resolution detailing the outcome of the 2005 World Summit, A/RES/60/1, will be used. The 2005 Summit focused on the areas of development, security, human rights and reform of the United Nations. In addition to reaffirming confidence and faith of the United Nations and its charter, the Summit also established the United Nations Peacebuilding Commission and a new Human Rights Council.

Even though these documents were released several years apart, they still follow the same principles of peacebuilding and detail the manner to which the United Nations approached, understood and practiced peacebuilding and conflict prevention prior to their new framework discussed above and can therefore be used as a comparison to the current approach see how it has changed.

(27)

6 Analysis

Within this chapter and the following subsections, the selected material will be analyzed using the WPR approach in combination with the chosen theoretical framework in order to see how the United Nations peacebuilding approach has changed. The analysis will be divided based on the operational question with each section constituting one operational question.

6.1 How does the United Nations problematize

peacebuilding?

Within the documents presenting the United Nations approach to peacebuilding, not only are solutions to achieving peace found, but within them the problems to achieving peace are also discovered. As discussed, the problems discovered in the documents are defined as ‘problem representations’ or ‘problematizations’ by the WPR approach and these problem representations contribute to shaping the policy, or in this case the United Nations approach to peace. How the United Nations understands peace and thus the decisions they take when approaching and practicing peacebuilding in conflict-affected areas is shaped by the problem representations. This first section of the analysis will identify the dominate problem representations within the reports and resolutions of the previous and current United Nations peacebuilding approaches.

Previous Approach:

Within both the ‘An Agenda for Peace’ report and the 2005 World Summit Outcome resolution, the problem representations found within are rarely explicitly stated and rather can be found when deconstructing the types of solutions presented in order achieve peace. Already on the first page of the Agenda for Peace report it states “The sources of conflict and war are pervasive and deep. To reach them will require our utmost effort to enhance respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, to

(28)

where it states that human rights and fundamental freedoms are necessary to establishing just and lasting peace (General Assembly, 2005, pp. 1-2).

Continuing on within the documents the importance and necessity of the state is discussed as a crucial aspect in the process of peacebuilding. Both the 2005 resolution and the Agenda for Peace report stress, on several occasion, the importance of the state and the crucial and critical role it plays to establishing peace. It is not, however, any type of state that is of focus for the United Nations. Instead, the type of states needed from the point of view of the United Nations to successfully build peace are characterized by good governance, democracy, strong institutions and the rule of law. In ‘An Agenda for Peace’ it is stated that, “The foundation-stone of this work is and must remain the State” (Secretary-General, 1992, p. 4) and “Democracy at all levels is essential to attain peace for a new era of prosperity and justice” (ibid., p. 22). It is further reiterated in the statement, “There is an obvious connection between democratic practices - such as the rule of law and transparency in decision-making - and the achievement of true peace and security in any new and stable political order” (Secretary-General, 1992, p. 16). The 2005 resolution corroborates these statements by stating “We further reaffirm our commitment to sound policies, good governance at all levels and the rule of law” (General Assembly, 2005, pp. 3). Here it can be seen, in an implicit manner, that through these statements, the previous United Nations approach to peace constructs a lack of states characterized by democracy, strong institutions and the rule of law as a problem and hinderance to peacebuilding.

This strong focus on the state’s role in peacebuilding is further evidenced within the material when globalization and global interdependence is discussed. Herein the United Nations is representing globalization and independence as a problem specifically related to the impact it has on the state. In the documents the problem is constituted of two types of problematizations. The first problem detailed in An Agenda for Peace is the weakening and lessening of the exclusive and absolute sovereignty of states (Secretary-General, 1992, p. 4). According to the document the sovereignty of states being lessened as a result of world being more interdependent leads to an increase in the fragmentation of states. This fragmentation is due to groups, be it ethnic, religious or linguistic, claiming statehood. For the United Nations this fragmentation of the state leads to peace, security and economic well-being becoming more difficult to achieve

(29)

(ibid.). The second problem representation of globalization and interdependence is that “threats” are no longer contained within national boundaries but rather are interlinked and need to be dealt with on all levels globally, regionally and nationally (General Assembly, 2005, pp. 20-22).

Keeping in line with the problem representation relating to states, is the focus found within the material, specifically in the 2005 resolution, on global trade. In addition to the need for strong and stable democratic states to properly establish sustainable peace and the problem that non-democratic states pose, it is also stressed that global trade systems and even more so, the liberalization of global trade systems are as a crucial requisite for peace, specifically in the process of development (General Assembly, 2005, p. 8). This can be seen in the statement, “A universal, rule-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system, as well as meaningful trade liberalization, can substantially stimulate development worldwide, benefiting countries at all stages of development” (ibid.). Additionally, “We will work to accelerate and facilitate the accession of developing countries and countries with economies in transition to the World Trade Organization consistent with its criteria, recognizing the importance of universal integration in the rules-based global trading system” (ibid, p. 8).

By applying the theoretical lenses of this study to these problematizations, the clear correlations to liberal peace theory are discerned. Within liberal peace theory the state is in focus with fragile and weak states being represented as the primary problems to achieving peace. These failed and fragile states are characterized as lacking democracy, not respecting the rule of law and human rights and being constituted of weak and unstable institutions. These are the characteristics of a state that the United Nations is asserting as necessary for peace to be established. In addition to the correlation to Liberal peace theory, there are also elements of Scandinavian peace theory visible in the problematizations. This is specifically in reference to the United Nations representation of globalization as a threat to peace and the negative impact it can have on states. Here again, even though this problematization is more in line with Scandinavian peace

(30)

Current Approach:

As with the previous approach, the problem representations found within the 2016 twin resolutions and the 2018 report are often explicit and found within the solutions presented to achieve peace. Right in the beginning of the 2016 resolutions and the 2018 report, how the United Nations is representing the problems of building peace and achieving sustainable peace can be seen as well as the type of peacebuilding that the United Nations is focusing on. The resolutions and the report both state that the United Nations is concerned by the suffering and high human cost that is caused by the increase in armed conflict across the world (General Assembly and Security Council, 2016, p. 1). More importantly however, stated in the twin resolutions, is the focus on humanitarian crises. The resolutions states, “recognizing the significant number of simultaneous security and humanitarian crises that the world currently faces, and the strain that this places on the resources of the United Nations’ system” (ibid.). This focus on humanitarian issues and the emphasis that adhering to humanitarian norms is a key to achieving sustainable peace is further stressed in the 2018 report when it states, “At the country level, there should be a common prioritization of risks and opportunities, grounded in universally agreed human rights and humanitarian norms and standards” (Secretary-General, 2018, p. 6). In addition to the report and resolutions focusing on humanitarian issues and humanitarian norms there is also an emphasis on human rights and how critical it is to peacebuilding and sustaining peace seen in the statement, “The international human rights framework, in particular Member States’ obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, provides a critical foundation for sustaining peace” (ibid, p. 6). This is quite similar to the problem representation found in the previous approach.

Moreover, in the resolutions the United Nations describes that the organization is determined to establish peace that is lasting and just on the basis of the principles of the United Nations Charter (General Assembly and Security Council, 2016, p. 1). These principles that are the foundation of the type of peace the United Nations wants to establish, that are stated within the charter of the United Nations, build upon the concepts of human rights, the rule of law, fundamental freedoms and democracy (General Assembly, 2012, p. 2). As can be seen, these statements are not necessarily directly or explicitly problematizing anything, however if the theoretical lenses are applied the problematizations can be discovered, primarily with the lens of liberal peace

(31)

theory. As discussed previously, Liberal peace theory states that human rights, democracy, freedoms, the rule of law and institutions are requisites for peacebuilding and represents states not upholding these principles as hinderances to peace and dangers to themselves and the rest of the world. Even though in the current approach, states not upholding these principles is not directly represented as a problem, the necessity of states having these characteristics in order to build peace is described to be of great importance. Therefore, it can be understood and interpreted that the United Nations would represent states not having these characteristics as problematic.

As stated above, the United Nations describes humanitarian issues to be a significant problem to peacebuilding as well as emphasizing the importance of human rights in achieving sustainable peace. However, the other aspects of the approach that are related to problematizing peacebuilding are not as clearly stated but rather can be seen in what the documents state to be important to the United Nations in establishing sustainable peace. Throughout the report and resolutions, the role that governments play in establishing peace and resolving conflicts is stressed several times throughout the documents. The primary emphasis is the “responsibility of national Governments and authorities in identifying, driving and directing priorities, strategies and activities for sustaining peace” (Secretary-General, 2018, p. 1). Analyzing this statement through the theoretical lens of liberal peace theory, as done previously, it is clear what underlying problem is being represented, by saying governments are the primary channel of driving peace processes. If a state does not have a functioning government or the government is fragile, then it will not be able to take on the responsibility of achieving sustainable peace as emphasized by the United Nations. The United Nations is effectively stating that a functioning government must be in place in order for sustainable peace to be achieved. This then follows the logic held by Liberal peace theory that failed and fragile states and governments are the primary hinderance to peacebuilding (Richmond, 2004). This fundamental notion of the need of governments and the problem of achieving peace without them is further illustrated when in the resolutions it is stated that the rule of law, access to justice, good governance, democracy and accountable institutions are

(32)

sustaining peace and that building institutions and advancing economic development in countries affected by conflict is critical (ibid.).

In addition to the focus on governments, human rights and humanitarian aid, the United Nations in their new approach also focuses on the need for inclusivity in peacebuilding. This is specifically in relation to the need to include all segments of society in the process of creating sustainable peace. Again, as discussed in the previous paragraph, the problematization is not explicitly stated and is instead seen by reading between the lines of what is stated in the document. The resolutions state that sustaining peace needs to be understood as a process designed to build a common vision of society where the needs of all segments of the population are considered (General Assembly and Security Council, 2016, pp. 1-2). It can be seen here through the use of the theoretical lens of critical peacebuilding, that the United Nations believes that not including all segments of society will lead to peace not being able to be achieved or at least not be sustained. Critical peacebuilding emphasizes, as one of the main problems to achieving peace, that local aspects of conflicts not being considered and included within peacebuilding processes results in peace not being sustainable (Nadarajah and Rampton, 2015, p.53). However, continuing on in the same paragraph it is stated that sustaining peace is the task and responsibility of governments and that there is a need for sustained international assistance in order to establish peace (General Assembly and Security Council, 2016, p. 2). Here, there is instantly a shift away from the understandings of critical peacebuilding that peace needs to be built from the bottom-up and instead the focus is put on governments and other international actors to be the primary facilitator in the same manner proposed by liberal peace theory.

As shown and discussed so far, both the 2018 report and the 2016 resolutions have been focused on problematization of peacebuilding and sustaining peace primarily relating to the crucial role that governments play and the need to adhere to the principles of the United Nations Charter (democracy, rule of law, human rights, good governance, etc.) when approaching peacebuilding. As stated, these aspects are the same as the problem representation and solutions to peacebuilding outlined by Liberal peace theory as well as Scandinavian peace theory to a lesser extent. One aspect that is discussed in the new approach that is not entirely focused on the state,

“New” Sustainable Peacebuilding? - A Critical Examination of the United Nations Change in Peacebuilding Approach