Unpacking the Liberal Peace: The Dividing and Merging of Peacebuilding Discourses

Abstract

This paper assesses the discursive environment of post-conflict intervention as a prism through which to view the international politics of the post-Cold War era. I argue that the `liberal peace' is not a single discourse but a tripartite international discursive environment that dynamically reproduces technical solutions which fail to address the core issues of conflict in a given place. The paper starts from the assumption that over the last twenty years we have seen a shift from an understanding of peace as a state of affairs in a given territory (as explored by Michael Banks in a 1987 paper) to peace as a process of post-conflict intervention; a move from peace to peacebuilding. This `liberal peace' sets a standard by which `failed states' and `bad civil societies' are judged according to ethical, spatial and temporal markers. However, the apparent homogeneity of the model obscures the divisions and mergers which characterise the scholarship and practice of international peacebuilding. The boundaries of the peace debate remain; the political differences latent in Banks' three conceptions are retained in the evolving discourses of democratic peacebuilding, civil society and statebuilding. The paper shows how these three basic discourses are reproduced in international policy analyses and major academic works. Moreover, the discursive mediation of their differences is the dynamic by which the liberal peace is sustained, despite its detachment from the lived experiences of post-conflict environments. It is in this sense that we can comprehend international peacebuilding as a virtual phenomenon, maintained in the verbal and visual representations of international organisations, diplomats and academic policy-practitioners. In light of this disaggregation of the discursive environment, a better, more nuanced understanding of the liberal peace can be attained: one that is able to grasp how critics and criticisms become incorporated into that which they seek to critique. The paper concludes with three propositions regarding the nature of world order in the era of the tripartite `liberal peace'. During this time coercion, military force and even warfare have become standard and legitimate features of peacefare. The discursive dynamics of international peacebuilding illustrate how peace has become ever more elusive in contemporary international politics.

Peace building and the depoliticisation of civil society: Sierra Leone 2002–13

“…Critical voices usually substantiate their arguments by means of a Foucauldian discourse analysis with particular focus on his concept of gouvernmentalité or biopower, or a Marxistinspired analysis highlighting social justice and equality. These discussions frequently support or rely on a Gramscian notion of civil society (see Chapter 2, Section 2.1); thereby emphasising the emancipatory or transformative potential of the civil sphere in fragile states (e.g., Bendaña, 2003;Featherstone, 2000;Heathershaw, 2008;Mac Ginty, 2006Richmond, 2005Richmond, , 2013. Recently, the alternative discourse school has dominated, or at least, gained significantly more attention in present peacebuilding and development research.…”

The Brazilian Engagement with Peace Operations: a Critical Analysis

“…32 For more in this regard, see for instance (Duffield 2001;Heathershaw 2008;Paris 2004;Richmond 2006;2008, 89-95. ) For a detailed account of the different aspects and nuances of the liberal peace, see for example (Heathershaw 2008;Richmond 2006;.…”

“…) For a detailed account of the different aspects and nuances of the liberal peace, see for example (Heathershaw 2008;Richmond 2006;.…”

Consolidação internacional da paz versus percepções locais sobre a paz: encontros e desencontros

“…Em linhas gerais, essa tese -que sustenta o discurso da paz liberal -emana de duas outras teses: de um lado, provém da teoria da paz democrática (PARIS, 2004;MAC GINTY, 2006); de outro, é pautada na ideia de que livrecomércio e integração econômica contribuem para a estabilidade em regiões propensas a conflitos por meio da promoção do crescimento econômico e, subsequentemente, da redução da pobreza e das desigualdades (WILLETT, 2011;HEATHERSHAW, 2008). Na prática, no entanto, ambas as teses são bastante problemáticas em contextos de pós-guerra.…”